This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at jhttp : //books . qooqle . com/
m
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
/
1
SOME OF THE CHIEF AR&CLES . .
IN THE DICTIONABT OP CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY^ ETC.,
VOL. IV.
Nboplatonish
. J. R. Mozley, Esq.
NesTORIANISM
Professor Stokes, D.D.
Ophites
Professor Salmon, D.D.
Orisen
. Professor Westoott, D.D.
Oriqenistic Controversies
. A. W. W. Dale, Esq.
Papias
. Professor Salmon, D.D. •
Patriarchs of Alexandria, A
Jerusalem, and Constantd
ntioch, 1 Canon Bright, Precentor Venables
iople . ) Rev. W. M. Sinclair.
Patrick
. Professor Stokes, D.D.
Paulinos of Nola
. Canon Phillott.
Pelagius
. Professor Ince, D.D.
Person of Christ
. Professor Stokes & Rev. C. J. Ball
Philo
Dr. Edersheim.
POLYCARP .
Professor Salmon, D.D.
Pores
. Rev. J. Barmby.
Predestination .
. Rev. E. S. PfoulkeH.
Priscillian
. Rev. M. B. Cowell.
Prudentius
. Rev. W. Lock.
\ Quicunque Volt
. Dr. Cazenove.
ft Sibylune Oracles
. Rev. J. H. Lupton.
S Simon Magus
. Professor Salmon, D.D.
^js Socrates and Sozomen .
. Professor Milligan, D.D.
. Tatian .
. Professor Fuller.
V Teaching of tiie Apostles
. Professor Salmon, D.D. •', ,
Tertullian
Professor Fuller.
Testaments of the XII. Pa i r
iaiichs Rev. R. Sinker. -
Theodore of Mopsdestia
. Professor Swete, D.D.
Theodore of Tarsus
. The Bishop of Chester.
Theodobet . . . .
Precentor Venables.
Thomas Harklensis
Rev. Dr. Gwyiuie.
* The*Holy Trinity
. Archdeacon Cheethani, JJ.D.
. . VALiKTINUS
Professor Lipsius, D.D. '
* -.Verse Writers
. Rev. W. Lock.
Wilfeid
. Canon Kaine.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
%
^
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Digitized by
Google
A DICTIONARY
CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY,
LITERATURE, SECTS AND DOCTRINES;
THE FIKST EIGHT CENTUEIES.
A CONTINUATION OP «THE DICTIONARY OP THE BIBLE.'
EDITED BT
WILLIAM SMITH- D.C.L., LL.D.
HENRY WACE, D.D.
i-bebexdary op st. Paul's ; principal op king's college, London : preacher op
lkscolm's ixn; H05f. chaplain to the queen, and chaplain to T1IE
ARCHBISHOP OP CANTEBBIBY.
YOLUME IV.
N— Z.
LONDON:
JOHN MUBRAY, ALBEMAELE STEEET.
1887.
Digitized by
Google
loxdox :
lltlNTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SON'S, LIMITED,
»All»OHl> 6IEEKT AMD CHABISG UltOKS.
Digitized by
Google
PKEFACE.
It is with much thankfulness that the Editors issue the final
volume of a work so extensive as this Dictionary of Early Christian
Biography, and liable to so many contingencies. No scholar, they
think, will be surprised that it has taken somewhat longer to
complete this volume than was requisite for the second and third.
Not only is it larger ; but the changes and chances of life expose
the conduct of such a work to increasing difficulties as it proceeds.
Too many of those whose names are recorded in the following List
of Contributors have passed away since the work was commenced,
and many others have advanced to more distinguished and more
laborious positions. From these various causes not a few difficulties
and disappointments have been encountered; but they have been
surmounted by the generosity and enthusiasm with which the
enterprise has been pursued by the contributors, especially by some
of the most learned and at the same time the most closely engaged
in other duties. The plan of the work, as explained in the Preface
to the Second Volume, has been maintained, the only exception
being that it has not been found practicable to give the names of all
the Bishops who are known only by their signatures at Councils
and by nothing more. But it is hoped that the endeavour to give
some account of all names directly or indirectly connected with
Christian Literature has been substantially carried out. One other
explanation may be desirable in reference to a doubt expressed by
some critics, on the publication of the third volume, whether a
single volume would be sufficient to do justice to the names in the
letters from N to Z. As near a calculation, however, as was possible
had been made of the space requisite for this purpose, and a
reference to the more important names at the close of the volume
will show that this Dictionary is not liable to the charge, to which
many biographical works are open, of scamping the treatment of
the later names of the alphabet. A fair test of the equality of
treatment in this respect may be afforded by examining the space
occupied by names in any Index to Patristic Literature and Ecclesi-
astical History, such as the Index to Ceillier's work, or Chevalier's
invaluable Bio-Bibliographie. An Index is a mere witness to the
material contained in the work or series of works to which it applies,
301903
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
IV PREFACE.
and is equally impartial throughout. It is satisfactory, therefore, to
find that the proportionate space occupied by the letters contained in
this volume — about three-sevenths of the whole — is very nearly the
same as is occupied by the same letters in both those indices. The
Editors must also express their sense of the liberality with which,
the publisher has facilitated this completeness of the work.
The contingencies and anxieties, to which the Editors have
referred, render them the more bound to record their grateful thanks
to the contributors and advisers who have continued their support
to them, notwithstanding their own varying and increasing burdens.
More especially are they bound to express their warm gratitude to
the Bishop of Chester and to Dr. Salmon, the Regius Professor of
Divinity at Dublin, for the kindness with which they have continued
to read through the proofs of the work to the very last, and to assist
the Editors with their learned counsel. A special acknowledgment
is also due from them to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, not-
withstanding his arduous responsibilities, has found time to complete,
even to the smallest name, his treatment of the persons connected
with St. Cyprian. They find it difficult to single out other names
where so many have been generous and unwearied ; but one other
colleague claims a peculiar tribute of gratitude. The devotion, the
accurate and thoughtful learning, the generous labour and the
unwearying care, of the Rev. Charles Hole, Lecturer in Ecclesiastical
History at King's College, London, have conferred incalculable
advantages on this work, and have, it is hoped, rendered a degree
of accuracy practicable which, without such help, would have been
scarcely attainable in so large a work, conducted under such condi-
tions. With all these efforts, there must remain much to be desired
in this first effort to furnish a complete Biographical Cyclopaedia of
Christian Antiquity. But the Editors venture to hope that, by the
combined efforts of the contributors, a great advance has been made
in this direction, and that the work may materially promote, both
here and abroad, a fuller comprehension of Church History.
Digitized by
Google
LIST OF WKITEES
IN THE DICTIONARIES OP CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY
AND ANTIQUITIES.
rsrriALs. names.
A.H.D. A. Arthur Herbert Dtke Acland, Esq., M.A., M.P.,
Of Christ Church, Oxford.
S. A. Sheldon Amos, Esq., M.A.,
Late Professor of Jurisprudence in University College,
London.
31. F. A. The late Rev. Marsham Frederick Argi.es, M.A.,
Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford, and Member of the
Oxford Mission to Calcutta.
H. T. A. Rev. Henry Thomas Armfield, M.A., F.S.A.,
Rector of Colne-Engaine, Essex; late Vice-Principal of
the Theological College, Salisbury.
F. A. Rev. Frederick Arnold, B.A.,
Of Christ Church, Oxford.
T. A. Thomas Arnold, Esq., M.A.,
Of University College, Oxford; Fellow of the Royal
University of Ireland.
W. T. A. William Thomas Arnold, Esq., M.A.,
Of University College, Oxford.
C. B. Rev. Churchill Babington, D.D., F.L.S.,
Disney Professor of Archaeology in the University of
Cambridge; Rector of Cockfield, Suffolk; formerly
Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge.
G. P. B. Rev. George Percy Badger, D.C.L., late Chaplain, Bombay
Presidency.
H. B — y. Rev. Henry Bailey, D.D.,
Rector of West Tarring and Honorary Canon of Canter-
bury Cathedral; late Warden of St. Augustine's
College, Canterbury, and formerly Fellow of St. John's
College, Cambridge.
C. J. B. Rev. Charles James Ball, M.A.,
Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn, and Master in Merchant
Taylors' School.
J. B — y. Rev. James Barmby, B.D.,
Yicar of Pittington, Durham ; formerly Fellow of Mag-
dalen College, Oxford, and Principal of Bishop
Hatfield Hall, Durham.
a 2
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
\i LIST OF WRITERS.
INITIALS. NAMES.
A. B. Most Eev. Alfred Barky, D.D.,
Lord Bishop of Sydney.
S. A. B. S. A. Bennett, Esq., B.A.,
Of Lincoln's Inn.
E. W. B. Bight Hon. and Most Eev. Edward White Benson, D.D.,
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.
T. S. B. Eev. Thomas S. Berry, B.D.,
Trinity College, Dublin.
W. B. Walter Besant, Esq., M.A.,
(in Diet. Ant.) Secretary of the Palestine Exploration Fund ; late Scholar
of Christ's College, Cambridge.
E. B. B. Eev. Edward Bickersteth Birks, M.A.,
Vicar of St. Michael's, and Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge.
C. W. B. Eev. Charles William Boase, M.A.,
Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford.
H. B. The late Henry Bradshaw, Esq., M.A.,
(in Diet. Biog.) Fellow of King's College, Cambridge ; Librarian of the
University of Cambridge.
W. B. Eev. AVilliam Bright, D.D.,
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford; Eegius Professor of
Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford.
H. B. The late Eev. Henry Browne, M.A.,
(in Diet. Ant.) Vicar of Pevensey, and Prebendary of Chichester Cathedral.
I. B. Isambard Brunel, Esq., D.C.L.,
Of Lincoln's Inn ; Chancellor of the Diocese of Ely.
J. B. James Bryce, Esq., D.C.L., M.P.,
Of Lincoln's Inn ; Regius Professor of Civil Law in the
University of Oxford.
T. E. B. Thomas Eyburn Buchanan, Esq., M.A.,
Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.
D. B. The late Eev. Daniel Butler, M.A.,
Rector of Thwing, Yorkshire.
J. M. C. Eev. John Moore Capes, M.A.,
Of Balliol College, Oxford.
J. G. C. Eev. John Gibson Cazenove, D.D., F.E.S.E.,
Subdean and Chancellor of St. Mary's Cathedral, Edin-
burgh ; formerly Provost of Cumbrae College, N.B.
C. Yen. Samuel Cheetham, D.D.,
Archdeacon of Eochester ; Canon of Eochester ; formerly
Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge.
C. G. C. The late Eev. Charles Granville Clarke, M.A.,
Vicar of Langley Fitzurse, Wilts; formerly Fellow of
Worcester College, Oxford.
E. B. C Edward Byles Cowell, Esq., M.A.,
Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Cambridge,
Fellow of Corpus Christi College.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LIST OF WRITERS. vii
INITIALS. NAMES.
M. B. C. Bev. Maurice Btles Cowell, M.A.,
Vicar of Ash-Bocking.
F. D. F. H. Blackburne Daxiell, Esq., M.A.,
Of Lincoln's Inn.
6. W. D. Bev. George William Daniell, M.A.,
Chaplain of Dulwich College; formerly Chaplain and
Censor of King's College, London.
T. W. D. The late Bev. T. W. Davids,
Of Upton.
L. D. Bev. Lionel Davidson, M.A.,
Sector of Chedburgh.
J. LL D. Bev. John Llewelyn Da vies, M.A.,
Sector of Christchurch, Marylebone ; Chaplain in Ordinary
to the Queen; formerly Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge.
C. D. Bev. Cecil Deedes, M.A.,
Eector of Wickham St. Paul; formerly Chaplain of
Christ Church, Oxford, and Vicar of St. Mary
Magdalen, Oxford.
J. De S. Bev. John De Soyres, M.A.,
Curate of St. John the Baptist, Great Marlborough
Street.
W. P. D. Bev. William Purdie Dickson, D.D.,
Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow.
A. B. C. D. Miss A. B. C. Dunbar.
S. J. E. Bev. Samuel John Eales, M.A.,
Formerly Principal of St. Boniface's Mission House,
Warminster, and Head Master of the Grammar
School, Halstead, Essex.
A. E. Bev. A. Edersheim, D.D., Ph.D.,
Formerly Vicar of Loders, Bridport, and Warburtonian
Lecturer at Lincoln's Inn.
J. E. Bev. John Ellertos, M.A.,
Eector of White-Boding.
C. J. E. The late Bev. C. J. Elliott, M.A.,
Vicar of Winkfield, Windsor; Hon. Canon of Christ
Church, Oxford; formerly Crosse and Tyrwhitt
Scholar in the University of Cambridge.
E. S. Ff. Bev. Edmund Salusbury Ffoulkes, B.D.,
Vicar of St. Mary the Virgin, Oxford ; formerly Fellow
and Tutor of Jesus College, Oxford.
A- P. F. The late Bight Bev. Alexander Penrose Forbes, D.C.L.,
Bishop of Brechin.
W. H. F. Hon. and Bev. William Henry Fremantle, M.A.,
Canon of Canterbury ; Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford ;
formerly Bector of St. Mary's, Marylebone, and Fellow
of All Souls College, Oxford.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
viii LIST OP WRITERS.
INITIATE. NAMES.
J. M. F. Eev. John Meb Fuller, M.A.,
Professor of Ecclesiastical History in King's College,
London ; Vicar of Bexley and .Rural Dean ; formerly
Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge.
J. G. Eev. James Gammack, M.A., LL.D.,
Aberdeen.
C. D. G. Kev. Christian D. Ginsbueg, LL.D.,
British Museum.
C G. Eev. Charles Gore, M.A.,
Librarian of the Pusey Library, Oxford; Fellow of
Trinity College, Oxford.
W. F. G. The late Eev. William Frederick Greenfield, M.A.,
Master of the Lower School, Dulwich College.
E. S. G. The late Eev. Eobert Scarlett Grignon, B.A.,
Formerly Eector of St. John's, Lewes.
J. Gw. Eov. John Gwynn, D.D.,
Archbishop King's Divinity Lecturer in the University
of Dublin ; formerly Dean of Deny.
A. W. H. The late Eev. Arthur West Haddan, B.D.,
Eector of Barton-on-the-Heath ; Hon. Canon of Worcester ;
sometime Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford.
C. E. H. Eev. Charles Edward Hammond, M.A.,
Eector of Wootton, Northampton; formerly Fellow and
Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford.
E. H. Eev. Edwin Hatch, M.A.,
Eector of Purleigh ; formerly Vice-Principal of St. Mary
Hall, Oxford ; Bampton Lecturer, 1880.
E. C. H. Eev. Edwards Comerford Hawkins, M.A.,
Vicar of St. Bride, City of London; formerly Head
Master of St. John's Foundation School, Leatherhead.
L. H. Eev. Lewis Hensley, M.A.,
Vicar of Hitchin, Herts ; Hon. Canon of St. Alban's ;
formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
C. H. Eev. Charles Hole, B.A.,
Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History at King's College,
London ; formerly Eector of Loxbear.
H. S. H. Eev. Henry Scoti 1 Holland, M.A.,
Senior Student and Tutor of Christ Church, Oxford;
Canon of St. Paul's.
H. Eev. Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D.,
Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge; Chaplain
to the Bishop of Winchester.
H. J. H. The late Eev. Henry John Hotham, M.A.,
Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
J. H. The late John Hull ah, Esq., LL.D.,
Honorary Fellow of King's College, London.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LIST OF WRITERS. ix
I51TIAI5. NAMES.
W. I. Rev. William Ince, D.D.,
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford; Eegius Professor of
Divinity in tho University of Oxford.
W. J. Eev. William Jackson, M.A., F.S.A., F.R.A.S.,
Formerly Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford ; Bampton
Lecturer for 1875.
G. A. J. Eev. Georgk Andrew Jacob, D.D.,
Formerly Head Master of Christ's Hospital, London.
D. R. J. Eev. David Eice Jones, B.A.
W. J. J. Eev. William James Josun-g, M.A.,
Eector of Moulton, Suffolk ; formerly Fellow and Tutor
of Christ's College, Cambridge.
C. F. K. C. F. Keary, Esq., . .
Of the British Museum.
E. J. K. Eev. Eichard John Knowling, M.A.,
Chaplain, Censor, and Lecturer of King's . College,
London.
S. L. Eev. Stanley Leathes, D.D.,
Professor of Hebrew in King's College, London; Pro-
bendary of St. Paul's; Eector of Cliffe-at-Hoo,
Eochester ; Bampton Lecturer, 1874.
L. Eight Eev. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, D.D.,
Bishop of Durham.
R. A. L. Eichard Adelbert Lipsius, D.D.,
Professor of Divinity in the University of Jena.
W. L. Eev. Walter Lock, M.A.,
Fellow of St. Mary Magdalen College, and Sub-warden of
Keble College, Oxford; Examining Chaplain to the
Bishop of Lichfield.
J. M. L. John Malcolm Ludlow, Esq.,
Of Lincoln's Inn ; Eegistrar of Friendly Societies.
J. E. L. Eev. John Robkrt Lunn, B.D.,
Vicar of Marton-cum-Grafton, Yorkshire ; formerly Fellow
6f St. John's College, Cambridge.
J. II. L. Eev. Joseph Hirst Lupton, M.A.,
Surmaster of St. Paul's School ; formerly Fellow of St.
John's College, Cambridge.
G. F. M. Rev. George Frederick Maclear, D.D.,
Warden of St. Augustine's College, Canterbury.
A. CM. Arthur Cornwallis Madan, Esq., M.A.,
Senior Student of Christ Church, Oxford.
F. W. M. Frederic W. Madden, Esq., M.E.A.S.,
Brighton College.
S. M. The late Rev. Spencer Maxsel, M.A.,
Vicar of Trumpington ; formerly Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
x LIST OF WRITERS.
INITIALS. KAMES.
W. B. M. The late Rev. Wharton B. Marriott, M.A.,
Formerly of Eton College, and sometime Fellow of Exeter
College, Oxford.
A. J. M. Bev. Arthur James Mason, M.A.,
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge ; Canon of Truro ;
Rector of All Hallows, Barking.
G. M. Rev. George Mead, M.A.,
Chaplain to the Forces, Netley.
F. M. Rev. Frederick Meyriok, M.A.,
Rector of Blickling, Norfolk; Prebendary of Lincoln
Cathedral ; Chaplain to the Bishop of Lincoln ;
formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford.
W. M. Rev. William Milligan, D.D.,
Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the
University of Aberdeen.
G. H. M. Rev. George Herbert Moberly, M.A.,
Master of St. Nicholas's Hospital, Sarum ; formerly
Principal of the Theological College, Lichfield, and
Prebendary of Lichfield; Fellow of Corpus Christi
College, Oxford.
T. D. C. M. Rev. Thomas Daniel Cox Morse,
Vicar of Christ Church, Newgate, City of London.
H.C.G.M. Rev. Handley Carr Glyn Moole, M.A.,
Principal of Ridley Hall, and late Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge.
J. R. M. John Rickards Mozley, Esq., M.A.,
Formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge.
J. B. M. J. Bass Mullinger, Esq., M.A.,
St. John's College, Cambridge.
A. N. Alexander Nesbitt, Esq., F.S.A.,
Oldlands, Uckfield.
P. 0. Rev. Phipps Onslow, B.A.,
Rector of Upper Sapey, Worcestershire.
F. P. Rev. Francis Paget, D.D.,
Regius Professor of Pastoral Theology, and Canon of
Christ Church in the University of Oxford.
G. W. P. Rev. Gregory Walton Pennethorne, M.A.,
Vicar of Heathfield, Sussex; formerly Vice-Principal of
the Theological College, Chichester.
W.G.F.P. Walter G. F. Phillimobe, Esq., D.C.L.,
Of the Middle Temple; Chancellor of the Diocese of
Lincoln ; formerly Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.
H. W. P. Rev. Henry Wright Phillott, M.A.,
Rector of Staunton-on-Wye ; Praelector of Hereford
Cathedral; formerly Student of Christ Church and
Master in Charterhouse School.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LIST OP WRITERS. xi
A. P. Bev. Alfred Plummer, M.A., D.D.,
Master of University College, Durham.
E. H. P. Very Rev. Edward Hayes Plumfi-re, D.D.,
(or P.) Dean of Wells ; formerly Fellow of Brasenose College,
Oxford.
De Presskxse. Eev. E. Dk Pressense,
Of Paris.
J. B. Bev. James Raine, M.A., D.C.L.,
Bector of All Saints, York ; Canon of York ; formerly
Fellow of the University of Durham.
W. B. Eight Eev. William Beeves, D.D.,
Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore.
H. B. R. Bev. Hknry Bobert Reynolds, D.D.,
Principal of Cheshnnt College.
G. S. Bev. George Salmon-, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., F.B.S.,
Chancellor of St. Patrick's Cathedral, and Regius Professor
of Divinity in the University of Dublin.
P. S. Bev. Philip Schaff, D.D.,
Bible House, New York.
F. H. A. S. Bev. Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L..LL.D.,
Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon, Middlesex.
W. E. S. The late Bev. William Edward Scudamore, M.A.,
Bector of Ditcbingham ; formerly Fellow of St. John'n
College, Cambridge.
J. S. Bev. John Sharpe, B.D.,
Bector of Elmley-Lovett ; formerly Fellow of Christ's
College, Cambridge.
B. S. The late Benjamin Shaw, Esq., M.A.,
Of Lincoln's Inn; formerly Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge.
IL C. S. Eev. Henry Cary Shuttleworth,
Lecturer on Pastoral Theology in King's College, London ;
Bector of St. Nicholas Cole Abbey, City of London.
W. M. S. Bev. William Macdonald Sinclair, MA.,
Vicar of St. Stephen's, Westminster; Chaplain to the
Bishop of London.
R. S. Bev. Bobert Sinker, B.D.,
Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge.
I. G. S. Bev. Isaac Gregory Smith, B.D.,
Vicar of Great Malvern ; Prebendary of Hereford Cathe-
dral ; formerly Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford ;
Bampton Lecturer for 1873.
E. P. S. Very Rev. Robert Payne Smith, D.D., Dean of Canterbury.
R. T. S. Eev. R. Travers Smith, D.D.,
Canon of St. Patrick's Cathedral, and Vicar of St.
Bartholomew's, Dublin.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
xii LTST OF WRITERS.
J. W. S. Rev. John William Stanbridge, B.D.,
Hector of Bainton; formerly Fellow and Tutor of St.
John's College, Oxford.
W. S. Eev. William Stewart, D.D.,
Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of
Glasgow.
a. T. S. Eev. G. T. Stokes, D.D.,
Vicar of All Saints, Blackrock, Dublin, and Professor of .
Ecclesiastical History in the University of Dublin.
J. S — t. John Stuart, Esq., LL.D.,
Of the General Register House, Edinburgh.
S. Eight Eev. William Stubbs, D.D.,
Bishop of Chester; formerly Regius Professor of Modern
History in the University of Oxford.
C. A. S. The late Eev. Charles Anthony Swainsox, D.D.,
Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of
Cambridge; Canon of Chichester Cathedral; Master
of Christ's College, Cambridge.
H. B. S. Eev. Henry Barclay Swcte, D.D.,
Eector of Ashdon; Professor of Pastoral Theology in
King's College, London ; formerly Fellow and Di-
vinity Lecturer of Gonville and Caius College,
Cambridge.
E. S. T. Eev. Edward Stuart Talbot, M.A.,
Warden of Keble College, Oxford.
C. T. Eev. Charles Taylor, D.D.,
Master of St. John's College, Cambridge.
E. St. J. T. Eev. Eichard St. John Tyrwhitt, M.A.,
Formerly Student and Ehetorio Reader of Christ Church,
Oxford.
E. V. Eev. Edmund V enable*, M.A.,
Canon Eesidentiary and Precentor of Lincoln Cathedral. '
n. W. Eev. Henry Wace, D.D.,
Prebendary of St. Paul's: Principal of King's College,
London; Preacher of Lincoln's Inn; Hon. Chaplain
to the Queen, and Chaplain to the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
M. A. W. Mrs. Humphry Ward.
F. E. W. Rev. Frederick Edward Warren, B.D.,
Rector of Frenchay ; formerly Fellow of St. John's College,
Oxford.
H. W. W. Ven. Henry William Watkins, M.A., D.D.,
Archdeacon of Auckland ; Canon of Durham ; Professor of
Hebrew in Durham University, and Examining Chap-
lain to the Bishop of Durham.
E. B. W. Eev. Edward Barnett Wensley, B.A., ;
Vicar of Hoo-Allhallows, Eochester.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LIST OP WRITERS. xiii
isnuu. NAMES.
B. F. W. Eev. Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D.,
or W. Canon of Westminster ; Begius Professor of Divinity in
the University of Cambridge ; Fellow of King's College,
Cambridge ; formerly Fellow of Trinity College.
G. "W. The late Eev. George Williams, B.D.,
Vicar of Eingwood ; Hon. Canon of Winchester; formerly
Fellow of King's College, Cambridge.
H. A. W. The Eev. Henry Austin Wilson, M.A.,
Fellow of St. Mary Magdalen College, Oxford.
Che. W. Eev. Christophkb Wordswobth, M.A.,
Eector of Glaston, and Prebendary of Lincoln ; formerly
Fellow of Peterhouse, and Scholar of Trinity College,
Cambridge.
J. W. Eight Eev. John Wordsworth, D.D.,
Bishop of Salisbury; formerly Fellow and Tutor of
Brasenose College, Oxford ; Bampton Lecturer, 1881.
W. A. W. William Aldis Wright, Esq., M.A.,
Trinity College, Cambridge.
E. M. Y. Eev. Edward Mallet Young, M.A.,
Head Master of Sherborne School; formerly Fellow of
Trinity College, Cambridge.
H. W. Y. Eev. Henry William Yule, B.C.L., B.D.,
Eector of Shipton-on-Cherwell and Vicar of Hampton Gay.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
DICTIONARY
OF
CHRISTIAN BIOGEAPHY.
LITERATURE, SECTS, AND DOCTRINES.
N
NAAMANES
NAMMATIUS
NAAMANES, a chief of the Scenite Arab*,
ion of the chief Alamnndaras. His life was
spared by the emperor Maurice, and he
eventually became a Christian. (Evag. H. E. vi.
2, 22.) * [C. H.]
NAAMATUS, Not. 17, twenty-fifth bishop
of Vienna, who died A.D. 567 in his 73rd year.
An ancient metrical account of him is quoted in
the Gallia Christiana, xvi. 26. [C. H.]
NAASSENES. [See Ophites.]
NABOB (1), a saint honoured with St.
Felix at Milan (Ambros. Ep. 22). He is believed
to have been martyred there in 304 (Boll. Acta
SS. 12 Jul. iii. 291 ; Tillem. ii. 79, v. 267). See
also for this and others of the same name, Alcuin,
Carm. 104; Gall. Chr. xiii. 709; andD. C. A.
Nabob. [C. H.]
NABOB (2), Donatist bishop of Centuriones,
a place of unknown site in Numidia (Booking,
Not. Dig. Occ. p. 644), present at the council of
Cirta A.D. 305. (Opt. i. 14 ; Aug. c. Cresc. iii.
30.) [H- W. P.]
NACHLAN, saint. [Nathalan.]
NAILTBIM, saint in Kidwelly, co. Carmar-
then, in the time of St. David : in the Latin Life
of St. David his name is Maitrun (Rees, Camb.
Brit. SS. 123, 406). [J. G.]
NAINNLDH (Neskidhts), son of Eochaidh
of the race of Niall of the nine hostages by
Ugach Bredmainech, was bishop of Kiltoom, co.
Westmeath. His feast is Nov. 13 (If. Don.;
Beeves, S. Adamn. 172-3). There are also Nain-
nidh of Crnach, April 21, Nainnidh of Cluain
b-Uinnsenn, June 2, and Nainnidh of Inis Cais,
Oct. 12 {M. Dan. 107, 143, 275 ; Journ. Boy.
Hist, and Arch. Assoc. Ir. 4 ser. iii. 47 aq.)
[J. G.]
NAITAN, king of the Picts. [Nectar (2).]
CUBIST. BIOOR. — VOL. IT.
NAMAEA, a, female correspondent of Chry-
sostom's, who wrote her a playful letter from
Cncnsus in 405. (Ohrys. Ep. 47.) [E. V.]
NAMATIUS (1), Oct. 27, ninth bishop of
Clermont in Auvergne, 446-462. He built the
cathedral church, the dimensions and architec-
tural details of which, rather fully given by
Gregory of Tours, are of considerable interest.
He was married, and his wife built another
church in the suburbs in honour of St. Stephen,
but in course of time it was called after
St. Eutropius. (Greg. Tur. B. F. ii. 16, 17, 21 ;
Glor. Mart. cap. 44 ; Savaron, Orig. de Clairm.
pp. 48, 353, ed. 1662; Gall. Chr. ii. 230; Boll.
Acta SS. Oct. xii. 254; Tillem. v. 316, xv.
36, 409.) [S. A. B.]
NAMATIUS (2) (Namacius), addressed,
along with his wife Ceraunia, in a consolatory
letter by Ruricius bishop of Limoges, whose
son was married to a daughter of Namatius.
(Rur. lib. ii. epp. 2, 3, 4, 5, 61, in Pat. Lot.
lviii.; Tillem. xvi. 270; Ceill. i. 608.) [Najj-
MATius.] [C. H.]
NAMATIUS (3), nineteenth bishop of
Orleans, present at the first and second councils
of Macon in 581 and 585 (Mansi, ix. 936, 957).
He was sent by king Guntram on an embassy to
the Bretons, and on his return journey died in
587 (Greg. Tur. H. F. ix. 18 ; GaU. Chr. viii.
1415). [C. H.]
NAMFASIUS, Nov. 21, a hermit of Mar-
cillac, Aveyron, cir. 800 (Mabill. AA. SS. 0. S. B.
Saec iii. 2, p. 405 ed. 1734). [C BV)
NAMMASIUS, an advocate who pleaded the
canse of the party of Primian against the
Maximianists before the proconsul of Africa,
A.D. 394 (voL ii. 475 ; Aug. c. Cresc. iv. 4, S).
[H. W. P.]
NAMMATIUS (Namatius), celebrated in
Gaul for his eloquence, and addressed in 471 by
B
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
2
NAMPHAMO
Sidonius Apullinaris, who sent him the works of
Varro and the Chronicle of Eusebius. He may
hare been the Namatins addressed by Ruricius.
(Sidon. lib. viii. ep. 6 and note, in Pat. Lai.
lviii. 593; Ceill. x. 393; Tillem. xvi. 269, 270.)
[Namatius (1).] [C. H.]
NAMPHAMO (or Namphahto, Mart. Rom.
Jul. 4). He with his companions, Lucitas, Myg-
don or Miggin, and Samae or Saname, were
apparently the first martyrs who suffered in
Africa, and therefore, according to Aube, suffered
nnder the proconsul Saturninus, A.D. 180, who,
as Tertullian states, first attacked the Christians.
Namphamo enjoyed the local title of archi-
martyr. He is only known to ns by the corre-
spondence between Maximus of Madaura and St.
Augustine (cf. August. Opp. t. ii., Epp. 16 and
17). From this correspondence we conclude
that these martyrs were of Punic blood and not
Roman colonists. Augustine expounds the name
Namphamo as a Punic one. See Scilutan
Martybs for other authorities. [G. T. S.]
NAMPTJLUS, Numidlan bishop addressed
by Cyp. Ep. 62, and in synodical letter {Ep. 70)
of Syn. Carth. de Bap. i. The name is tho-
roughly African, as evinced by inscriptions.
[E.W. B.]
NANNANUS, mentioned by Giraldus Cam-
brensis as an ancient saint in Connaught, who
in a plague of fleas expelled the insects from
the locality " per excommunicationcm et impre-
cationem suaro." (Girald. Camb. Oemma Eacle-
siastica, distinct, i. cap. 53, Topographia Hibtrnica,
dist. it. cap. 31 in Works, ii. 160, r. 119, ed.
Dimock, 1867.) [J. G.]
NANNTDIUS or NANNIUS. [Nenhius.]
NANNYD LAMDEBE, Irish saint, "vir
sanctns et vtrtutibus plenus," A.D. 540.
(Ussher, Brit. Eool. Ant. c 18, wks. vi. 473,
590.) [Niksidh (I).] [J. G.]
NANTECHTLDI8 (Nahdechtlms, Nan-
thtldis, Nantildis), wife of Dagobert I. and
mother of Clovis II., kings of the Franks.
Notices of her occur in Fredegarius {Pat. Lot.
lxxi.) and in the following authorities contained
in Bouquet, t. iii., Aimoin, Chron. 8. Denys,
Chron. Afarcianenae, Hermannus Contractus,
Hucbald's Life of St. Rictrude. She was married
to Dagobert at Paris in 628, the year he became
sole king of the Franks, Dagobert deserting
queen Gomatrudis in the villa Romiliacum
(Reuilly, now a snburb of Paris) where he had
married her, and taking Nantechildis, " unam ex
puellis de ministerio," as Fredegar (p. 635 where
see note) describes her, or " quandam puellam a
monasterio raptam," as Aimoin puts it after a
corrupt reading (Bouq. 127 D and note). Aimoin
here says Dagobert forsook Gomatrudis on ac-
count of her sterility. Fredegar (637) blames
Daeobert's luxuriousness in having three queens,
Nantechildis, Wlfegundis, Berchildis, besides
numerous concubines. In 630 her brother
Landegiselus died and was buried at St. Denys's
{Chr. 8 Den., Bouq. 292 d). In 633, Dagobert's
12th year, she became the mother of Clovis II.
(Fred. 648). She is mentioned in a diploma of
NANTHAEIUS IX
Dagobert I. in 633 (Breq. num. 261). In 637
she stood sponsor for Eusebia [Ecsebia (7)3
daughter of duke Adalbald and Rictrude {Chron.
Marcianense and Hucbald's Life of Rictrude,
Bouq. 523 B, 538 B). Early in 638 Nante-
childis and her son Clovis were committed by
Dagobert, shortly before his death, to the
guardianship of his minister Aega or Aeganea
?Kred. 651 ; Aimoin, Bou. 134 c ; Chr. 8 ZJetu,
Bon. 298 e). At the accession of Clovis II. to the
throne of Neustria and Burgundy the govern-
ment was in the hands of Nantechildis in con-
junction with Aega as mayor of the palace
(Fred. 651 ; Aimoin, Chr. 8. Den., Henn., in
Bouq. 135 D, 301 B, 328 C). The Chr. 8 Den.
makes Nantechildis then residing at Venete
(Vannes). In 638 she and Clovis received at
Compi&gne the Austrasian nobility sent from
Metz by king Sigebert, headed by Chnnibert
archbishop of Cologne and the Austrasian.
mayor Pippin, when by the advice of Aega the
treasure of Dagobert there stored was divided
equally between the two brothers Sigebert and
Clovis, Nantechildis having reserved for her
one-third of what was amassed by Dagobert
after his marriage with her (Fred. 655 ; Aimoin
and Chr. S. Den., Bouq. 136 A B, 801 C). In
638 she subscribed a diploma of Clovis II. to
the monastery of St. Maur-des-Fosses (Bouq. iv.
634 A ; Brequigny, Diplomats, ed. Pardessus,
vol. ii. num. 291). In 640, after Aega's death,
she had his son-in-law Ermenfred [Ermenfrb-
DUS (1)] heavily mulcted for the murder of
count Aennlph (Fred. 654). The same year,
according to Brequigny's date, she subscribed a
praeceptum of Clovis II. to the monastery of St.
Denys (Breq. num. 294 ; Bouq. iv. 638 A un-
dated). Her name occurs in a spurious charter
of Blidegisillus assigned to 640 (Breq. num.
293). In 641 she accompanied Clovis from
Orleans to the capital of Burgundy (so the
passage of Aimoin reads in Bouquet, "Aure-
lianis caput regni Burgundiae petiit," and
Fredeg. 658 similarly), where she received the
bishops and nobility of that kingdom, who came
to make their submission to her son, with
marked consideration, appointing Flaucatus, to
whom she gave her niece Ragneberta in mar-
riage, mayor of the palace for Burgundy
(Aimoin and Chr. 8 Den., Bouq. 136 e, 301 e).
The Chr. 8 Den. here cited places the event at
Orleans. She died in 641 (Fred. 659), after
bequeathing many rich legacies to various
churches, including that of St. Denys {Chr. 8.
Den., Bouq. 302 a), where she was interred with
Dagobert. (Aimoin and Chr. S. Den., Bouq.
137 B, 302 a; Diploma of Landeric, Breq. nam.
320; Diploma of Clovis IL, Breq. num. 322, and
Pat. Lot. lxxi. 1198 A.) [C. H.]
NANTHAEIUS (l) L, seventh abbat of
St. Bertin, cir. 744-754. In this monastery
during his rule, Childeric III., the last of the
Merovingian kings, was immured, A.t>. 752,
and died the same year (Laplane, Let Abbes de
Saint-Bertin, i. 29; Gall. Chr. iii. 487). For
a deed of gift to the monastery during his
abbacy and dated July 25, 745, see Pat. Lat
cxxivi. 1187. [S. A B.]
NANTHAEIUS (2) IL, eleventh abbat of
St. Bertin, cir. 804-820. In 808 or 809 the
Digitized by
Google
NA2JTINU8
emperor Charles sent him and another abbat to
Britain in company with the papal legate, with
• view to procure the reinstatement of Eardulph
the exiled king of the Northumbrians (Einard,
Amah*, ap. Pertx, Script, i. 195 ; Bouquet, v.
57, 255, 355> He was probably the abbat
Nantharins present at the council of Noyon in
815. (Mansi, xiv. 142 ; Laplane, Lea Abbes de
Sant-Bertm, i. 43 ; Gall. Chr. iii. 488.)
[S. A. B.]
NANTINUS, count of Angouleme, cir. 578,
who robbed the church, quarrelled with Hera-
elius the bishop, was excommunicated, and
perished in an epidemio (Greg. Tur. H. F. v. 37).
[c. a]
NABCISSUS (l\ bishop of Jerusalem, at
the close of the 2nd century. Clinton {Fasti
Sonant) accepts the date A.D. 190 for the com-
mencement of his episcopate. He was the 15th
of the Gentile bishops of Jerusalem, reckoning
from Marcus A.D. 136, TOrca-cuSunlrip' Sryuv
Siu&oxh*! and the 30th in succession from the
Apostles, TpiounxrrV ixb rwv &TooriKar Karri
ri/r rm i\r\t Ziataxhv (Euseb. H. E. V. 12).
According to the Synodicon, Narcissus presided
over a council of 14 bishops of Palestine held
at Jerusalem A.r>. 198, on the Paschal con-
troversy, and took part in that held at Caesarea
on the same subject under the presidency of
Theophilus, bishop of the city (Labbe, Concil. i.
600). Eusebius speaks of the synodical letter
of these bishops as still extant in his time (Euseb.
Et. E. v. 23). Narcissus occupied a conspicuous
position in the church of his day, standing forth
" as one of the more prominent heroes of those
early times'* (Neale, Patriarch. of Antioch, p. 34).
A tapii iroWois tlairi rvr Pffrnipivos (Euseb.
H. E. v. 12). Eusebius records a miracle tra-
ditionally ascribed to him among many others
(i-oAAi «tol ft\Xo xajxio'oja), to the effect that one
Easter Ere, the oil for the lamps required for
the great illumination usual at that festival
having failed, and the people being grievously
disheartened at so unfavourable an omen, Nar-
cissus commanded the deacons to draw water
and bring it to him, and after he had prayed
over it, to pour it, with hearty faith, into the
lamps, on which it was converted into oil. A
small portion of this miraculously produced oil,
Eusebius tells us, was preserved among the
treasures of the church in his own day (Euseb.
H. E. vi. 9). The rigid sanctity and holy con-
sistency of Narcissus raised against him a
band of slanderers among those who, conscious
of their own evil life, dreaded conviction and
punishment. He was accused of some heinous
crime — probably a sin of imparity — and three
witnesses came forward to substantiate the
charge. Finding the people incredulous, they
imprecated on themselves terrible curses if their
accusation was not true— one, that he might
be burnt alive ; another, that he might become
leprous; the third, that he might be struck
with blindness. But not even so were they able
to convince their hearers of the truth of their
story. Narcissus, however, stung by the
calumny, and fearing that his influence for
good would be destroyed by a charge, which
some would be certainly found to give credence
to, abdicated his bishopric, and retired to the
remotest part of the desert, where for several
NAECISSUS
8
years he lived the ascetic life, top QiXiaoQav
0{ov, which he had long coveted, no one knowing
the place of his concealment.
Having been sought for in vain, the neigh-
bouring bishops declared the see vacant, and
ordained Dius as his successor [Dius]. Dius was
succeeded by Germanicus, and he by Gordius.
During the episcopate of the last named, Nar-
cissus reappeared, as it were rising from the
dead, Scnrcp i£ ivafititrtas avacpaytls. Shortly
after his disappearance the falsity of the charges
brought against him, Eusebius tells us, had been
proved by the curses imprecated by the false
accusers having been fearfully made good. This
having eventually reached Narcissus's ears pro-
bably induced him to return to his see, the
oversight of which he at once resumed at the
earnest request of all. [Gobdius.] (Euseb. H. E.
vi. 9, 10.) We are not told what became of
Gordius. In the second year of Caracalla, a.d.
212 (Euseb. Chronicon), Alexander, a Cappadocian
bishop, a confessor in the persecution of Severus,
visiting the holy city in fulfilment of a vow,
was selected by the aged prelate as his coadjutor
and eventual successor. Eusebius records the
tradition that this was done in obedience to a
nocturnal vision vouchsafed first to Narcissus
himself, and afterwards to the leading members
of the church. Eusebius preserves a fragment
of a letter written by Alexander to the people of
Antinous, in which he associates Narcissus with
himself in beseeching them to be of one mind.
In this letter he speaks of Narcissus as being
then in his hundred and sixteenth year, and as
having virtually retired from his episcopal office.
[Alexander.] (Euseb. H. E. vi. 11.) Epipha-
nus states that he survived ten years after
Alexander became his coadjutor, to the reign of
Alexander Severus A.D. 222 (Epiph. Hour. lxvi. 20).
This, however, is very improbable. Nicephorus
calls him a martyr (ff. E. iv. 19), but the
authority of the martyrologies, which commemo-
rate him, October 29th, without any such
designation, negatives this. (Tillemont, Mem.
Eeeles. iii. 177 ff.) [E. V.]
NABCISSUS (2), Mar. 18, bishop and
martyr. He was born in the East, preached the
gospel in Bhaetia ; converted S. Afra from a life
of sin at Augsburg, and then departing to Spain,
taught there with great success. He suffered
with his deacon Felix, an African, in the Diocle-
tian persecution. (AA. SS. Boll. Mar. ii. 621.)
For other martyrs see Narcissus in D. C. A.
[G. T. S.]
NABCISSUS (3), bishop of Neronias(Ireno-
polis) in Cilida (Le Quien, ii. 898). In and
about 314 he attended the councils of Ancyra
and Neocaesarea (Mansi, ii. 534, 549). He was
of the party of Arras before the council of
Nicaea in 325 (Athan. De Syn. § 17). He atten-
ded the council of Nicaea (Mansi, ii. 694, 699,
818; Theod. JI. E. i. 7) and professed the
Catholic doctrine (Nicet. Chon. Then. Orth. Fid.
v. 7). In 332 he was one of the bishops at
Antioch who put forward Eusebius of Caesarea
for that see (Euseb. V. C. iii. 62). In 335 he
must have been one of the eminent Cilician
bishops at the Jerusalem dedication (Eus. V. C.
iv. 43). In 341 he was at the dedication council
of Antioch (Mansi, ii. 1308), and in 342 (Tillem.
vi 326, 759) was deputed, with bishops Theo-
B 2
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
4 NABDACIUS
dore of Heraclea, Maris of Chalcedon, Marcos of
Arethusa, from the emperor Constantius to his
brother Constans (Ath. De Syn. § 25 ; Soc ii.
18 ; Soz. iii. 10). About the same time he and
Flacillus bishop of Antioch conducted Eusebius
Emesenus [Eusebius (35)] to Emesa (Soc. ii. 9).
In 342 (al. 341) he was one of the Eusebians
addressed by pope Julius (Ath. Ap. c. Ar. § 20).
In 343 he formed one of the Eusebian party at
Philippopolis (Mansi, iii. 140 ; Hilar. Frag. ii. § 7,
§ 8, § 14 here called of Jeropolis, iii. § 29 here of
Anapolis, in Pat. Lat. x. 637, 638, 642), and was
deposed by the council of Sardica (Ath. Hist. Ar.
§ § 17, 28, Ap. c. Ar. § 36, Ep. ad Epuc. § 7).
Athanasius, writing cir. 350, calls him one of
the then prominent Eusebians (Ap. c. Ar. § 48).
In 351 he was one of the authors of the Sirmian
creed (Hilar. Frag. vi. § 7 in Pat. Lat. x. 692 ;
Tillem. vi. 351 ; Hefcl. Covnc. ii. 193). In 356
(Tillem. vi. 394) he was one of the synod of
Antioch which ordained George bishop of Alex-
andria (Soz. ir. 8 and note of Vales. ; Mansi, iii.
23). Athanasius, writing in 357 or 358, hears
that Narcissus is charging him with cowardice
for his flight (Ap. de Fug. § 1 init.), and declares
(§ 28) that Narcissus has been accused of many
offences, has been degraded three times by various
synods, and is the wickedest of all the Eusebian
party. In 358 Narcissus complains to Constan-
tius of Basil of Ancyra. (Philostorg. iv. 10 ;
Tillem. vi. 442.) ' [C. H.]
NABCISSUS, catholicos of Armenia. [Nor-
NABDACIUS (Sulp. Sev. ii. 50), a bishop,
and persecutor of the Friscillianists.
[M. B. C]
NABICUS, acolyte of Cyprian, sent by him
from his retirement with a second relief for
sufferers by Decian persecution. (Cyp. Ep. vii.)
[E. W. B.]
NABSES (1), martyr. [Lazarus (3).]
NABSES (2) (Barda, Barsa), bishop of
Edessa, occurs as Narses among the eastern
'bishops who addressed a letter to the Italians
and Gauls, a.d. 372 (Basil. Opp. iii. 263, Par.
1839 ; Ceillier, Attt. Sacr. iv. 446), but is better
known as Barsa, friend and correspondent of
St. Basil of Caesarea, who has left two letters
written to Barsa in a.d. 377 (Basil. Opp. iii. 590,
599, Epp. nos. 264 or 326, 267 or 327). [J. G.]
NABSES (3), an adherent of Gratian, for
whom St. Martin interceded with the successful
Maximus at the same time that he pleaded for
the condemned Priscillianists, A.D. 385 [Maxi-
mus (2)]. (Sulp. Sev. Dial. iii. 11 in Migne's
Pat. Lat. ix. 218 [Marttnus (1)].) [G. T. S.]
NARSES (4), priest, syncellus of Euty-
ches, was called as witness against Eutyches in
the 6th session of the council at Constantinople,
Nov. 20, A.D. 448, but there is no account of his
testimony : the minutes were read at the coun-
cils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (Binius, Cone. Gen.
ii. 86; Ceillier, Aut. Sacr. x. 672). [J. G.]
NABSES (5), twenty-fifth catholicus of
the Chaldaeans (Le Quien, Oriens Christ, ii.
1116), succeeded Silas but was opposed by
Elisaeus. The schism continued twelve or fifteen
NABSES
years till Narses's death, A.D. 535, when Elisaeua
also was deposed. (Greg. Barhebr. CAron. ii. 82
in Assem. B. 0. ii. 409, iii. 166, 614-5.) [J. G.]
NABSES (6), bishop of Ascalon, commended
in a poem of Sophronius patriarch of Jerusalem
(carm. xvii. in Pat. Or. lxxxviL 3801 ; Ceil!. xL
709). [C.H.]
NABSES ( 7), the eunuch, sent, in A.D. 551, to
take the command against the Goths in Italy,
where he had previously served under Belisarius.
For a short account of his successes in Italy, see
Justinianus I., Vol. III. 542, and for a detailed
account of his career, see Narses, Dictionary of
Greek and Soman Biography. He took part in
the ceremony at St. Peter's, when pope Pelagius
cleared himself of the charge of being implicated
in the death of his predecessor (Anastas. Vita
Pelagu). Pelagius subsequently asked him to as-
sist his legates in their proceedingsagainst certain
schismatic bishops, and more than once requested
him to arrest and send the bishops of Milan and
Aquileia [Paulinus ( ) ] in custody to the
emperor,and to use force against the other bishops
of Northern Italy and Istria, who refused to accept
the fifth general Council. Apparently the only
consequence of these exhortations was the excom-
munication of Narses himself, by the schismatics.
(Pelagii Epp. 1-4, in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxix.
393-397.) In a.d. 567 he was superseded by
Longinus in consequence of the complaints of
the oppressiveness of his administration, and he
is accused of having, in revenge, invited the
Lombards into Italy. According to the well-
known story, the empress Sophia said she would
charge him with parcelling out the wool for
spinning to the women of the palace, to which
Narses replied that he would spin her such a
thread as would last her her lifetime (Paalus
Diac ii. 5). At any rate, he retired to Naples,
from which he was induced in A.D. 568, by the
entreaties of pope John III. to return with him
to Rome, where he died soon afterwards (Anastas.
Vita Joanna III.). [F. D.]
NABSES (8), patrician, sometimes con-
founded with the preceding, is addressed in
several letters by Gregory the Great. The first
(i. 6) is written immediately after his election,
which he regrets ; in the second (iv. 32), from
which it appears that Narses was then in bad
health, and the third (vi. 14) he refers to the
case of the priest Joannes (471) ; and in the last
he also decides that Athanasius, a priest, had
fallen into Manichaeism, and makes some re-
marks on the Pelagian heresy. Though a fourth
letter (vii. 30) is addressed '■ Narsae religioso,"
he appears to be the same as the person to whom
the other three are written, as a number of per-
sons to whom Gregory sends salutations in the
first letter are again mentioned. In this letter
Gregory endeavours to console him under the mis-
fortunes and calumnies from which he is suffer-
ing, and commends to him the deacon Anatolius.
whom he is sending to Constantinople. He may
perhaps be the same as the Narses, the famous
general of the emperor Maurice (Theoph. Sim. v.),
on whose fall, in A.D. 602, he rebelled against
Phocas, occupied Edessa, and incited the Persians
to declare war. Two years afterwards, he sur-
rendered to one of the generals of Phocas, on
condition that his life should be spared, but
Digitized by
Google
NASAD
Phocaa, in violation of the promise, burnt him
alive. (Theophanes, Chrott. 245, 6, in Migne,
Patr. Graec cviii. 616.) [F. D.]
NASAD (Nasadh, Nassamus, Nazadius), a
Briton at Lough Bricren, co. Down, companion
of St. Bevan and St. Meldan ; he was com-
memorated Oct. 26. (ifart. Tall. ; Reeves, Eccl.
Ant. 113,380; Colgan, Acta SS. 90, n. '•; Boll.
Acta SS. 26 Oct. xi. 893, where is a sylloge
on the three saints of Lough Bricren, but
nothing decisive ; lb. 21 Oct. xii. 413, 414.)
[J.G.]
NASARAEI. Under this title Epiphanius
classes two distinct sects ; one Jewish, the other
Christian. The Jewish sect is numbered by him
with the Pharisees, Essencs, and Herodians. He
calls it the fifth heresy of Judaism. The Chris-
tian sect is placed by him next after the Cerin-
thians and before the Ebionites, and is numbered
the ninth heresy of Christianity.
Epiphanius spells the names of these sects
differently. The Jewish he names Ncwapatoi, the
Christian Nafvpauu. (1) Nasaraei (Nacaoouu)
then was, according to Epiphanius, a purely
Jewish heresy. They dwelt in the region across
the Jordan. They practised circumcision, and
reverenced the feasts and sabbaths of the Jews.
They rejected, however, animal food and sacrifices,
nnd regarded the Pentateuch as a forgery. Epi-
phanius vindicates the historical accuracy of
the Pentateuch by pointing to the localities
where the events there recorded took place;
Mount Sion, for instance, where Abraham had
sacrificed the ram; and the oak of Mamre,
where he had entertained the angels. Mamre,
indeed, down to the 4th century, continued
to be a place of pilgrimage at certain times,
whither Jews, Pagans, and Christians resorted,
and had a kind of fair, like the great Tara or
Telltown assemblies among the ancient Irish, or
the great autumnal meetings at Lyons of the
ancient Gauls. The abuses of it became so great
that Constantine abolished it by an edict (Sozom.
//. E. ii. 4). Epiphanius points out also other
corroborations of the Pentateuch. The Egyptians
retained traces and memories of the passover. in
the red paint which they marked in spring on
trees and cattle. In the region of the Cardyaei
relics of the ark were still shown, and he was
sure the remains of the altar built by Noah
could be discovered by the diligent enquirer in
the same region. Philaster, on the contrary, re-
presents the Nasaraei as quite orthodox about the
scriptures, but as trusting in the luxuriance of
their hair for salvation (lib. de Haeres. cap. viii.).
(2) Nazoraei (Nafapauu). Epiphanius occu-
pies a large part of his notice of the Christian
sect with a discussion concerning the descent of
our Lord from David, and the fulfilment of the
prophecies involved in Ps. ex. 4 and exxxii. 11.
His theory is that the Christians were at first
called Jessaei, from Jesse, the father of David, or
from the name Jesus, under which name Jessaei,
he thinks, he discovers mention of them in the
writings of Philo on the Egyptian Therapeutae.
Epiph. accepts these writings as authentic, a
view which some modern critics reject (cf. Sen.
Archeol. t. xxii. p. 268, t. xxvi. p. 12), regarding
them as a Montanist or Gnostic production of the
2nd century. The Christian Nazoraei were the
followers of those earliest Christian Jews who
NASABAEL 5
observed the law and believed in Christ. Epi-
phanius seems not to have been very well ac-
quainted with them. They were scattered
throughout Coele-Syria, Decapolis,Pella, whither
they fled to avoid the destruction of Jerusalem,
the region beyond the Jordan, and as far east as
Mesopotamia. He was uncertain as to the view
they took of Christ's person, whether they re-
garded him as a mere man or believed in his su-
pernatural conception. They were well skilled in
Hebrew, read the Old Testament in thatlangnage,
and possessed a Hebrew version of St. Matthew ;
but Epiphanius knew not whether it contained
the genealogies. They carefully observed cir-
cumcision and the Sabbath. They were known
to other writers of that age. Augustine (lib. i.
Cunt. Cresconium, cap. xxxi.) mentions a Naza-
rcne sect, by some called Symmachiani, who
used both Jewish circumcision and Christian
baptism. Jerome seems to have been better
acquainted with them than anyone else. Writing
to Augustine, he tells him that they were uni-
versally execrated by the Jews under the name
Misei. When commenting on Matt. xii. he
gives the renderings of the Gospel which the
Nazarenes use, which he had lately translated
out of Hebrew into Greek ; and tells us when
treating of St. Matthew in his Scriptt. Eccles.
that this Hebrew version of St. Matthew was
preserved in the library at Caesarea. (On this
point see more in Gospels Apocryphal, Vol. II.
p. 709, and Dr. Salmon's Introd. to the New Teat.
p. 215.) There were many points of contact
between this sect and other branches of the
Ebionite and Gnostic heresies. Epiphanius, in-
deed, expressly asserts that the Cerinthiana, Naza-
renes, Ebionites, Sampsaeans and Elcesaeans
agreed on many points. They seem all to have
delighted in the same localities — Syria, the
Hauran, and Mesopotamia. Traces of them
have been discovered in the Hauran. Wadding-
ton discovered at Zorava in Trachonitis, a monu-
ment commemorating a saint, yiopilvn, whom
the Sampsaeans worshipped. (Voy. Archeolog.
t. iii. Ins. 2502.) The Nazoraei still exist,
and under the same name, though they prefer
in public ''the name Sabians. They now live
in the marshes of Southern Babylonia, in
the neighbourhood of Bussorah, where they have
been visited by several modern travellers. The
latest accounts of them and their doctrines will
be found in Petermann, Reisen im Orient, t. ii.
p. 447 ; Kessler's article in Herzog g.r. Man-
daer ; an article by the same writer in the new
Encyclop. Britann. t. xv. p. 467, on the Man-
daeans; and in Liouffi, Etudes stir la religion dee
Soubbus, Paris, 1880; cf. also Chwolson's Die
Sabier. Their doctrines are now practically
identical with those of the ancient Manicheans
[Manes]. They retain, however, traces of the
sacraments in the religious use of bread and wine
and of baptism. Their sacred books are inter-
esting relics of Gnosticism. They were pub-
lished by Norbey in the early part of this
century, under the title of Codex Nasaraeus.
A critical edition is much required. See nlso
Dr. Salmon's Introduction to the New Testament,
p. 22, for his theory about the Ebionite com-
munities which were identical with the Naza-
renes of whom Epiphanius speaks ; cf. also Bishop
Lightfoot's Qalatians, p. 306. [Nazaraei.]
[G. T. S.]
Digitized by
Google
6
NA8AB
NASA8, a Sicilian Jew, who in 593 had
erected an altar in the name of the prophet
Elijah, and seduced many Christians to worship
at it. He had also purchased several Christian
slaves. (Greg. Mag. lib. iii. ind. xi. ep. 88 in Pat.
Lot. lxxvii. ; Jafle, S. P. num. 878.) [C. H.]
NATALIA, Dec. 1, wife of the martyr
Hadrianus, who suffered at Nicomedia in the
Diocletian persecution (Boll. Acta SS. 8 Sept.
iii. 209 ; Adon. Mart. Sep. 8). She ministered
to the martyrs in prison clad in male attire,
and after their passion departed to Byzantium,
where she died in peace. [G. T. S.]
NATALIS (1), OAECILIUS. [Miirocrcs
Felix, p. 924.]
NATALIS (»), of OBa (Oea ; Oeensis dvitas
Offenses Tac. Hist, 4, 50, corrected by Lipsius,
hod. Trablus, Tripoli), the famous colonia on coast
near Leptis in Prov. TripoL (mffr. 83. in Syn.
Carth. sub Cyp. vii.) [E. W. B.]
NATALIS (8) (NATTAL),abbat of Kilmanagh,
co. Kilkenny; commemorated July 31. He is
chiefly known in connection with his pupil St.
Senan, in whose metrical Life he is called Natal us
Celebris (Colgan, Acta SS. 170). He belongs to
the 6th century, but his tradition is undecided
as to exact date or identity (Lanigan, E. H. Ir.
i. c 9, § 4 ; O'Hanlon, Ir. SS. i. 450 sq. iii. 222 ;
Joyce, Ir. Names of Places, 139-40, 3rd ed.).
Giraldus Cambr. {Top. Bib. dist. ii. c 19) tells
a curious story of the transformation of a man
and woman in Ossory into wolves, "per impre-
cationem sancti cujusdam Natalia scilicet
abbatis," that is, of Kilmanagh. (Conf. Irish
Jfeanius, by Todd and Herbert, 204-5.) [J. G.]
NATALIS (4), bishop of Cesena, 590-614,
mentioned in 603 by Gregory the Great (lib. xiv.
ep. 6, in P. L. lxxvii. ; Ughelli, U. 445 ; Cappel-
letti, ii. 530, 554; Jaffa, 1538). [C. H.]
NATALIS (S), bishop of Salona, addressed in
four letters of Gregory the Great (i. 19, 21 ;
ii. 18, 52), and mentioned in others (i. 20 ; ii. 19,
20), which chiefly relate to his quarrel with
HOKOKATDB (28). He was also charged with
having uncanonically deposed and banished his
suffragan Florentiub (30), bishop of Epidaurus
(Epp. iii 8, 9 ; viii. 10). Natalia died about the
end of A.D. 592 (Epp. iii. 22). [F. D.]
NATALIS (6), ST., bishop of Milan, c 740.
(Boll. Ada SS. 13 Mai. iii 241 ; Ugh. ir. 70 ;
Cappelletti, xi. 133, 302.) [a H.]
NAT ALIUS, confessor at Rome, at the be-
ginning of the third century. Our knowledge of
him is derived from an extract given by Euse-
bius (H. E. v. 28) from an anonymous 8rd-cen-
tury work, which we have ascribed to Caius
(vol. iii. p. 98, 6). The story told is that Natalius
allowed himself to be persuaded to undertake the
office of bishop in the heretical sect of which
THEOPOTT78 the banker was a leader, receiving in
that capacity a ' salary ' of 150 denarii, monthly ;
that our Lord did not wish one who had braved
martyrdom for His sake to perish out of the
church, and warned him in visions to return ; but
NATHAN AEL
that when Natalius, blinded by ambition and by
covetousness, gave no heed to the visions, angels
were sent who scourged him severely for a whole
night. Thereupon he rose early, put on sack-
cloth and ashes, and with strong supplications
and tears besought Zephyrinus, the bishop, for re-
storation to communion ; rolling at the feet not
only of the clergy, but of the laity, and showing
the weals of the stripes he had received. Thus,
with creat difficulty, he obtained his pardon.
[G. S.]
NATEBAS. [Nathybab.]
NATHALAN (Naohlan, Nauchlan, Ne-
thaleuus, Nethelmcs, Nothlah), bp. and
conf., Scotch saint, whose legend is given at
Jan. 8 in Bret. Aberd. (Prop. SS. p. hyem. f. 25),
from which it is translated by Bp. Forbes, Kals.
417. See O'Hanlon, Ir. SS. i. 128; Dempster,
H. E. Scot. ii. 504, ascribing to him certain
writings now lost. He is said to have been born
in the parish of Tullicht on Deeside, devoted
himself early and entirely to religion, been made
bishop in Rome by the pope, and returned to the
north of Scotland, where he built churches, of
which he was afterwards the patron. He died
at Tullicht, a.d. 452, according to King (Bp.
Forbes, Kals. 141). But it is supposed by Skene
(Celt. Scot, ii 170) and Bp. Forbes that Nathalan
is the same as Nechtan abbat of Dun-Geimhin
or Dungiven, co. Londonderry, who died A.D. 679
(Ann. Tig.). [J. G.]
NATHALIA, Aug. 27 (Us.) Jul. 27 (Baron).
Martyr under the Arabs at Cordova in Spain.
His relics were found in that country by Usuard
when he was collecting materials for his mar-
tyrology. (Ceill. xii. 611.) [G. T. S.]
NATHANAEL, a solitary of Nitria, whose
history is told us by Palladius in hit Historia
Lausiaca, cap. 18 (cf. Migne's Pat. Lot. t. lxxiii.
col. 1 107). He entered the desert as a monk about
the year 338, and continued there till his death
about A.D. 376, some fifteen' years before Palladius
came to Nitria. Nathanael adopted the anchorite
life, but, like the rest of the monks, fancied
that he was specially pursued by a demon.
Ilis enemy wished to drive him from cell to
cell. At the beginning of his monastic career,
the demon rendered him so uncomfortable in
his first cell that he moved to another. In his
second cell the devil appeared again to him,
mocking him, and saying that he would drive
him from this cell too. Nathanael at once per-
ceived that he had made a capital mistake in
yielding a step to his opponent ; so he at once
returned to his original abode, which he never
again left for the space of thirty-seven years.
In fact some of these solitaries never left their
cells even to receive the Holy Communion.
Thus Sophronius tells us of St. Mary, an
Egyptian recluse, who nerer received the Holy
Communion for forty-seven years, during which
period she had lived in the Egyptian desert
(cf. Bingham's Antiquities, lib. xv. cap. v. ; Card.
Bon. Ser. Litwrg. lib. ii. cap. rviii. n. ii.).
Nathanael's demon ceased to trouble him for
the last nine months of his life after he failed
in the following attempt. He assumed the
appearance of a young boy of twelve driving
an ass laden with bread. He caused the ass to
Digitized by
Google
NATHANIEL
fall, towards eventide, just outside Nathaniel's
cell, whose ears he at once assailed with the
most lamentable cries for assistance, saying,
" Father Nathanael, hare pity on me, and stretch
forth a hand to help." The monk opened his
door, and surveyed the scene; asked who the
suppliant was, and was told that he was servant
to another monk. He urged too that his master
was celebrating an agape or lore feast, and that
the next day being the Sabbath, oblations would
be required, wherefore he asked help to raise
the fallen load of bread. The boy appealed to
his compassion also; wild beasts were about,
and if he left him unassisted, the hyenas will
devour him. The poor recluse was in a diffi-
culty. He pondered for a while, reflecting upon
the various tricks the demon had played upon
him. Then he said, "Listen, boy, 1 worship
God, whose rule is over all. If you really want
help He will send it without causing me to
break my vow ; and He will not permit hyenas
or anything else to hurt you. But if you are
a tempter God will reveal you," and he shut
his door. Whereupon the demon with a howl
was resolved into a whirlwind, and Nathanael
was left to die in peace. [G. T. S.]
NATHANIEL ( ) (Nathahael), the sixth
reputed abbat of St, Augustine's, Canterbury
<Jfon. Angl. L 120; Elmham, ed. Hardwick,
pp. 4, 184, 199-201 ; Thorn, ap. Twysden, cc.
1768, 1769, 2232). According to the history of
St. Augustine's, whether legendary or fictitious,
Nathaniel was one of the Roman missionaries
who accompanied Justus and Mellitus to England ;
was elected abbat by the brethren on the death
of Petronius in 654, after obtaining a licence of
election from Ercombert, king of Kent ; he was
then blessed by archbishop Deusdedit, and held
his office until the year 667, when he died. The
exact place of his burial was unknown. Nathaniel
is not mentioned by Bede, as he probably would
have been, if he had known of his existence, in
connexion with the history of Benedict Biscop
and abbat Adrian. The detailed circumstances
of the licence and election, probably drawn by
Elmham from the usage of his own time, are not
mentioned by the earlier writer. [3.]
NATHOH AEIMHE (Natuchaoimhe, Nat-
caeimue, Nacoeuius, Naitchainn, Nath-
cbeufhe, nathcokecs, mochoema, mochoe-
jrrus), abbat of Terryglass, co. Tipperary, was
son of Coemioga of the Dal Messincorb, and
Caeraell of the Hy Lngair. His feast is May 1,
and he died A.D. 588. (Ann. Tig. ; M. Doneg. 117
<t al. ; Four Matt, by O'Don. A.D. 584.) [J. G.]
NATHI (Nathias, Nathineds, Natuycs,
Datui, Dathyub, David), surnamed Conrach
and Crnimther, one of the most famous saints of
Connaught, yet the details of his life are obscure.
He is said to have received Achonry, co. Sligo,
from St. Finnian of Clonard about a.d. 530, to
have been a contemporary of St. Attracta, and
to have educated, and perhaps instituted, St.
Fechin at Fore, but this is doubtful. In the
Kalendars and old Lives he is always called
crnimther or priest ; but Ware and later writers
call him first bishop of Achonry, Luigny, or
Leyney (Cotton, Fait. iv. 97-8; Gams, Scr. Ep.
204), a see joined to Killala in the 17th century.
His feast is Aug. 9, and he flourished in the
NAVATU8 7
second half of the 6th century. (Colgan, Acta
SS. 140, 396 ; Lanigan, E. H. Ir. ii. 190 ; iii.
39 ; Ussher, wks. vi. 538, 600.) [J. G.j
NATHYBAS (Natoras, Netras), bishop of
Pharan. He was previously a monk of Sinai
and a disciple of Silvanus, the superior of the
Anchorites of Sinai. He exercised greater
austerities as a bishop than as a monk, on the
ground of the greater danger of his position.
(P.osweyd. Vit. Patt. t. 10 ; Coteler. Ecct. Graeo.
ifunum. i. 579 ; Tillem. JtVin. x. 453, xiv. 191 :
Le Quien, iii. 748.) [G. T. S.]
NAUCELION, a person to whomAlypius and
Augustine wrote A.D. 402 in reply to a state-
ment made by Clarentius, probably the Donatist
bishop of Tabraca (Garth. Coll. i. 187), to the
effect that Felicianus of Mnsti was condemned in
his absence by the original Donatist party, but,
having cleared himself from blame, was after-
wards received by them. To which they replied
that if he was innocent he ought not to have
been condemned, but if guilty, he ought not to
have been received afterwards. Maximinn had
been condemned at the same time by the Dona-
tists, yet they did not re-baptize Maximianisls
who came over to them. (Aug. Ep. 70.) [Felicia-
nus (4).] [H. W. P.]
NATJCHLAN, saint. [Nathalax.]
NAUCRATIUS (1), the brother, next in
age, of Basil the Great. He was born c 330 A.D.,
and was the only one of the four sons who did
not take holy orders. According to his brother
Gregory's account he was equally remarkable for
mental and physical endowments. His beauty
of person, strength and agility of body, were
thrown into the shade by his intellectual gifts
and eloquence (Greg. Nyss. it Vit. S. Moor. ii.
182). At the age of two-and-twenty, after having
given a public proof of his rhetorical powers,
which had called forth the applause of a crowded
theatre, under a strong conviction of the vanity
of all earthly honours and pleasures, he retired
from the world (0*la nr) *po/ui0(ta), accom-
panied by a single servant, Chrysaphius, leaving
all his property behind him, and settled on the
wooded slope of a hill above the river Iris, three
days' journey from the monastery of his sister
Macrina, which was also his mother's abode. Here
he gathered about him a little handful of sick
and destitute old men, whom he tended lovingly
in their sickness, and supported by the produce
of the chase, of which he was passionately fond.
He proved himself at the same time a dutiful
son, fulfilling his mother's desires with a glad
and ready will. After about five years spent in
this manner, he and his servant Chrysaphius lost
their lives by an accident in hunting, c. 357.
(Greg. Nyssen, Vit. S. ifacrinae, ii. 182-183.)
[E. V.]
NAUCBATIU8 (8), addressed by Nilus
(lib. i. epp. 259-263, in Pat. Gr. lxxix.). [C. H.]
NATJSTIANUS, bishop of Dumium and
Braga, and a writer under the Moorish domina-
tion in Spain, A.D. 790-830. (H. Florez, Espaila
Sagrada, xv. 170.) [G. T. S.]
NAVATCS (Novatus), bishop of Sitifa or
Sitifis, an important town and colony of Maure-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
8
NAVIGIUS
tania (Setif), Ant. Jtin. 24. 7 ; Ptol. iv. 2. 24.
Shaw, 2rat>. p. 52. He was present at the Con-
ference, A.D. 411, about which time St. Angus-
tine wrote to him, asking his forgiveness for not
sending to him at his request his brother, a
deacon named Lucillus, to serve in the diocese
of Sitifi, as he was the only one that he had
who could speak Latin. Navatus appears to
have attended the council of Carthage, A.D.
419, and he may have been the same man as one
of whom we hear in a letter from Augustine to
Darius, a.d. 429, though Ruinart thinks that
there were two bishops of Sitifi of the same
name (Carth. Coll. i. 2. 143 ; Hardonin, Cone. i.
1249; Aug. Ep. 84, 229; Morcelli, Afr. Chr.
i.283). [H.W.P.]
NAVIGIUS, brother of St. Augustine. He
was one of the party assembled at the country-
house of Verecundus in 386, and an interlocntor
in the dialogues held there, Contra Academicos,
De Ordine, De Beata Vita. He was present at
Monnica's death at Ostia in 387, on which occa-
sion his affectionate wish that his mother could
have died in her own country met with her
silent reproof. (Aug. Conf. ix. 11; c. Acad.
lib. i. c. 2, § 5 ; Seat. Fit. cap. i. § 6, ii. §§ 7,
12, iii. §§ 19, 20 ; Ord. lib. i. cap. 3, § 7.)
[H. W. P.]
NAWIAS, a Saracen king at Damascus, who
dedicated a basilica for his own people there,
leaving the Christians the church of St. John
Baptist, according to a work attributed to St.
Jerome, but belonging to a period not earlier
than the seventh century. (Hieron. Loc. in
Act. Apost. in Pat. Lat. xxiii. 1298, 1300;
Tillem. iii. 634.) [C. H.]
NAZABAEI. [Nasabael]
NAZABAEI, a name given by St. Gregory
Nazianzen to the monks in allusion to the Naza-
rites of the old dispensation. (Greg. Naz. Carm.
lib. I. sec. 2, in Migne's Pat. Qraec. t. 37, col.
745.) [G. T. S.]
NAZABIUS (1), June 12, a soldier and
martyr at Rome in the persecution of Diocletian
with three others (Mart. Horn., Adon. ; Ceill. x.
527). [G. T. S.]
NAZABIUS (S), July 28, a martyr, whose
body was found by St. Ambrose in a garden
outside the city after the death of the emperor
Theodosins in 395. He transported the body to
the Basilica of the Apostles, which was near the
Roman gate of Milan, and treated it after the
manner of the bodies of Gervasius and Protasius
[Gerv ASICS (1)]. Paulinus tells us in his Vita
Ambrosii, num. 32, which is the primary
authority for this martyr's history, that he had
there seen the body uncorrupted, and with hair
fresh as if buried but a day or two. In the
works of St. Ambrose (Mignc, P. L. xvii. 715)
there is a sermon, Serm. Iv., falsely ascribed to
him, on the natal day of Nazarius and Celsus.
It is evidently of a later date, as it speaks of his
martyrdom under Nero, whereas Paulinus tells
us that no one knew when he suffered. The
Bollandists have, however, devoted more than
thirty pages to a recital of his perfectly fabu-
lous acta (AA. SS. Boll. Jul. vi. 503-534.)
Paulinus Nol. mentions him, Poem, xxvii., cf.
NEBBIDIUS
Migne, P. L. lxi. 658. Ado, Usuard and Mart.
Vet. Rom. confound him with another Nazarius,
and celebrate his memory on June 12. (See
also Tillem. ii. 75, 86, iv. 255, 586). [G. T. S.]
NAZABIUS (8), an abbat of Lerins in the
5th century. He is said to have been a disciple
of St. Honoratus, afterwards bishop of Aries, and
may have succeeded Faustus as abbat when the
latter became bishop of Riez (circ. a.d. 462).
According to old MSS. of the monastery he de-
stroyed a shrine of Venus Impudica, situated on a
little hill on the mainland called Arlucus (Arluc),
and there founded the nunnery which is believed
to have flourished till the invasion of the Sara-
cens, who destroyed Lerins, in the time of St.
Porcarius (circ A.D. 730). He was succeeded
by a Eucherius, and was commemorated at
Lerins, Nov. 18 (Barralis Salerna, Chronoiogia
LerinensU, ii. 79-80). [S. A. B.Q
NEACHTAIN (Nectancs), of Cill-Uinchc
and Fennor on the Boyne, nephew of St. Patrick
by Liemania, from whom he bore the name Mac-
Leamhna. By Ussher (Brit. Feci. Ant. vi. 382)
he is called " Nechtain Episcopus," and Colgan
follows him (Acta S3. 717-18). His feast is
May 2. (M. Doneg. ; Four Mast, by O'Don. i.
414, n. •.) [J. A.3
NEADIUS (N«S8«w), a monk, addressed
with others by Nilus (lib. ii. ep. 77 in Pat. Gr.
lxxix.). [C. H.]
NEAMUS (Ktatuii) (Niceph. Call. H.E. xviii.
56 Jin.), bishop of Jerusalem. [Amos;] [C. H.]
NEABCHUS, a soldier in Armenia, by
whom St. Polyeuctus was converted c. 251 j
martyred e. 260 (Boll. Acta SS. 13 Feb. ii. 652,
22 Apr. iii. 12 ; Tillem. iii. 425, 427). [C. H.]
NEBBIDIUS (1), husband ofOlympias, the
celebrated deaconess of Constantinople. At the
time of his marriage, which Tillemont places
towards the close of 384 A.D. (Mfmoirei, torn. xi.
p. 419), he was young, but already high in
official rank. In 382 and 383 A.D. he was count,
or intendant of the imperial domain, and in 386-
A.D. prefect of Constantinople (see for references
Cod. Theod. torn. vi. p. 874, ed. Gothofred). He
died within twenty mouths of his marriage
(Pallad. p. 163), soon after June 29, a.d. 386.
[E. V.]
NEBBIDIUS (2), a Roman statesman and
prefect of Gaul, then of the East, in the later
part of the 4th century. He married the sister
of Aelia Flacilla the wife of Theodosius, and
was well known to Jerome. (Jerome, Ep.
lxxix. 1, ed. Vail.; Ammianus Marc. xxi. 5,
xxvi. 7, xxix. 5.) [W. H. F.]
NEBBIDIUS (3), son of the foregoing, by
a sister of the empress Flacilla, first wife of
Theodosins the Great. His father had been an
intimate friend of St. Jerome — " intima neces-
situdine copulatus " — (Hieron. Ep. 9). He
was brought up by his aunt the empress—
" materterae nutritus sinu " — in his uncle's
palace — "nutritus in palatio" — as the com-
panion and fellow pupil of his young cousins,
the future emperors Honorius and Arcadius—
" contubernalis et condiscipuslu Augustorum " —
Digitized by
Google
NEBRIDIUS
" ilsd«m stadiis eruditus " (ft.) — by whom he
was much beloved. Jerome draws a charming
picture of the young man's modesty, humility,
and virginal purity, which never gave the smallest
ground for scandal, as well as the kind considera-
tion by which he bound his inferiors to him.
Nebridius was married at an early age, some-
where about 390 A.D., by his uncle Theodosius,
to Salvina, the daughter of the Moorish chief-
tain, Gildo, count of Africa, who had been
brought up at the court of Constantinople,
as a pledge for the loyalty of her father and
of the province of which he was governor.
High official dignities were lavished on the
young man — " honores quae aetatem antcibant "
— which Jerome says he bore with a humility
and moderation which seemed to shew that he
foresaw that he should soon leave them all to
depart and be with Christ (ft.). He was (pro-
bably) proconsul of Asia, 396 A.D., and died soon
afterwards, leaving two children, a boy bearing
his name — " Nebridius pusio " — and a daughter,
the darling of her imperial relatives. His loss
was severely felt, not only in Constantinople,
where he had been the friend and reliever of
the destitute and afflicted, but throughout the
churches of the East, the bishops of which had
been in the habit of addressing to him their peti-
tions for cases of suffering in their dioceses, re-
lying upon his influence with the emperor and
those in chief authority. Jerome elaborately
applies to him the character given of Cornelius
the centurion in Acts x. (Hieron. Ep. 9.)
[E.V.]
NEBRIDIUS (4), an intimate friend of St.
Augustine, and probably of about the same age
as he was, described by him as very good and of
a very cautious disposition. While Augustine
was at Carthage, and still under the influence of
Mauichean doctrine, it was partly through his
influence and that of Vindicianus that he was
induced, though with some difficulty, to give up
his belief in astrology, or, as this science was
then called, mathematics. Nebridius had already
abandoned Manicheism and delivered lectures
against the system a.d. 379. (Aug. Conf. iv. 3,
vii. 2, 6.) When Augustine removed from
Rome to Milan, and undertook there the office
of a lecturer in rhetoric, A.D. 384, Nebridius,
in the fulness of his love for his friend, deter-
mined to leave his home and his mother, who
declined to accompany bim, and to take up his
abode with Augustine and Alypius at Milan,
** for no other reason," says Augustine, " than
that he might live with me in most ardent pursuit
of truth and wisdom. With me he sighed, with
me he wavered, an eager enquirer after the life of
happiness, and a most keen examiner of per-
plexing questions. There we were, three hungry
mouths, each of us in turn sobbing out to him-
self hi* tale of destitution, and waiting till
Thou, O God, shouldest give him meat in due
season. And in all the bitterness which, in Thy
mercy, followed us in our secular pursuits,
while we were striving to discern the purpose
for which we were made subject to these trials,
a cloud of darkness would rise up against us,
and groaning we would turn away and in agony
exclaim, ' How long is this to last T And as we
said this we determined not to abandon our
search, because if we were to let this go, nothing
NEBRIDIUS 9
certain appeared of which we might take hold.
(Con/, vi. 7, 10.)
By and by Nebridius undertook to assist
Verecundus, who was a teacher of grammar, in
his lectures, not for the sake of gain, but at the
earnest request both of himself and of Augus-
tine. This duty he performed with great care
and discretion, avoiding opportunities of acquain-
tance with persons of superior rank in the world,
in order to secure for himself more complete
freedom in his inquiries after true wisdom (ft.
viii. 6). Soon after this Verecundus offered his
country-house, Cassisiacum agntm, to Augustine
for himself and his friends to occupy, an offer
which they accepted with great pleasure and
advantage to themselves, and for which Augustine
was deeply grateful [LlCESTlCB]. Nebridius,
however, did not join the party, and it was
probably during the time of his friend's sojourn
there that most of the letters passed between
them which are preserved in the general col-
lection. During this time also he appears to
have taken up the notion of the Docetae, that
our Lord took human nature not in reality but
only in outward appearance, an error of which
in course of time, though we cannot fix the
date, he was convinced, and soon after the con-
version of Augustine he died, but not until he
had become a true Catholic, and had induced
his household to join him in the change. " He
is now," says Augustine with confidence, "in
the bosom of Abraham " (ft. ix. 3, 4).
Though a much loved and highly valued
friend, Nebridius was a troublesome corre-
spondent, for, as Augustine says, being most
intelligent and persevering in his enquiries,
which were sometimes very difficult to answer,
he was not satisfied with brief replies, and did
not always make sufficient allowance for his
friend's occupations and want of leisure (Aug.
Ep. 98, 8). Of the letters which passed between,
the two friends many are lost, and some never
reached their destination. Of the twelve which
remain, two only are addressed by Nebridius to
Augustine. The rest are by Augustine, who men-
tions several by Nebridius which he had not re-
ceived. These replies are very long, and chiefly
on metaphysical subjects of extreme subtlety,
and in some cases Nebridius seems to have been
more anxious to provoke his friend to discourse
than the latter was to reply, for Augustine
sometimes manifests a friendly impatience of
the speculative nature of his questions. Among
the subjects thus treated are the nature of
happiness, the difference between memory and
imagination, and the different provinces of these
two faculties (Epp. 3, 4, 6, 7, 13), the nature of
dreams {Epp. 8, 9). Some are concerning the
Incarnation (Epp. 11, 12, 14). One (14) contains
an answer by Augustine to a question from
Nebridius, in which he shews the fallacy com-
mitted by him in confounding sameness in the
case of different objects with similarity. At the
end of this letter he endeavours to reply to
another question of Nebridius respecting the
position held by the intellect of the Son of God
towards those of men, whether it contains in
itself the elements of human intellect in general,
or those which belong to each man one by one.
By way of reply Augustine says, when we think
of an angle we think of one only, but when we
think of a quadrangle we think of four angles at
Digitized by
Google
10
NEBEID1US
once. Each man is created with one intellect,
but if a nation is created, the intellect is not
that of one, but of many. Each man is a part of
the universe; God, the Creator of each part,
contains in Himself the intellect belonging to
each part. The first letter from Augustine
to Nebridius is curious in a literary point of
view, for in the course of it he asks his friend
whether the verb fugio makes fugi or fugiri in
the pass, inf., cupio, cupi or cupiri, and whether
the i in fugitum, cupitum, and capitum is long or
short ; a question which, coming from a professor
of rhetoric, seems to argue either an unsettled
state of the Latin language at the time, or an
imperfect degree of grammatical knowledge on
the part of the provincial professor ; of which
alternative suppositions, the latter is perhaps
the true one. [H. W. P.]
NEBRIDIUS (S), bishop, but his see in Spain
and his writings are unknown ; he was brother
of Justinian (4), bishop of Valentin, Elpi-
dius (17), and Justus (19) in the 6th century :
he may have been Nebridius bishop of Egara, at
the 2nd council of Toledo, a.d. 527 (Hefele,
Cone. ii. 701; Ceillier, Aut. Soar. xi. 265), and
Cains (Ser. Episc. 13) suggests that he may
have been translated to Barcelona before A.D.
540. On Nebridius of Egara see Henschen in
Boll. Acta SS. 9 Feb. ii. 301. [J. G.]
NEBBIDIUS (6) (Nehumus, Nifbidius,
Nimfrldius, NniBBlsius), abbat of Crassa (La
<3rasse) and afterwards the sixteenth bishop of
Narbonne, a prominent opponent of Felix of
Urgel and the Adoptionists [Felix (176)]. In
799 he was at the council of Urgel (Mansi, xiii.
1033). In 813 he was the emperor Charles's
missus dominicus at the sixth council of Aries
(Mansi, xiv. 57 e), and he can be further traced
down to 822. {Gall. Chr. vi. 15; Alcuin, Opp. i.
148, 267, 268 ed. Froben.) [C. H.]
NECTAN (1) (Nactan, Neachtan, Nectu,
Netthad), snrnamed Morbet, Morbrec, and
Horbreac, son of Erip, Irb, &c, and king of the
Picts, a.d. 455-480 (Innes, Crit. Ess. i. 101 sq.),
or a.d. 458-482 (Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 32). He
touches ecclesiastical ground in the legends of
St. Brioida at Abernethy in Scotland, and of St.
Boethius of Monasterboice, who is also brought
to Scotland. In honour of the former he is said
to have dedicated Abernethy and given it to her
pupil St. Darlugdacha ; and St. Boethius is
represented as restoring him to life. (Skene,
Chron. 6, et al. and Celt. Scot. i. 134-5 ; Innes,
Crit. Ess. ii. 778-9; Haddan and Stubbs, Coanc
ii. pt. i. 115-6.) [J. G.]
NECTAN (8), son of Derelei, king of the
Picts, succeeded his brother Bridei or Brude,
who died a.d. 706 (Ann. Tig.), but seems to
have been driven from the throne and made
prisoner by Drust about a.d. 725, and again
restored for a short time on a defeat of Angus,
son of Fergus, who afterwards reigned, however,
for about thirty years. He is believed to be the
Eactain or Echtain, king of the Picts, who was
clericated A.D. 724 (Ann. Tig.), and the Nechtan
mac Derile who died a.d. 732 (.Ann. Tig. See
Skene, CAron. pass.). Though the general events
and dates of his reign are uncertain, he was the
NECTAN, ST.
centre of a most important movement in the
Pictish church, which had commenced to feel
the Roman influence through Northumbrian The
paschal controversy was at its height, and St.
Wilfrid had already for half a century secured
the observance of the Roman Easter to the south
of the Firth. St. Adamnan had striven in vain
to procure the like observance in Iona among the
Dalriadic Scots; but St. Egbert the monk
(A.D. 716-729) was about to succeed where the
abbat had failed. Enquiry and discussion must
thus have been rife among the Picts and Scots
when Nectan ascended the throne, and was dis-
posed to adopt the Roman usages. Bede (E. H.
v. c 21) has preserved an account of his appli-
cation to Ceolfrid abbat of Jarrow [Ceolfrid],
for instruction as to the arguments necessary for
explaining and upholding the new rules for the
observance of Easter among his people, and for
the shape of the Roman clerical tonsure ; he also
wanted architects for the building of a church
after the manner of the Romans, promising at
the same time to dedicate it to the honour of St.
Peter the prince of the apostles, and to have
himself and his people always following the
custom of the holy Roman and apostolic church
"in quantum dumtaxat tamlonge a Romanorum
loquela et natione segregati hunc ediscere potu-
issent" (M. H. B. 275). This and Ceolfrid's
reply 'appear to have been written A.D. 710;
and Bede's account of the action of Nectan is
peculiarly striking, when, on receipt of Ceolfrid's
letter, he had it read and interpreted in the
assembly of his nobles, and on bended knee gave
thanks to God for the gift, formally adopted the
new Easter and tonsure, and took measures for
the universal reception of the new cycle and
suppression of the old among his clergy. But
Bede's account of the harmonious settlement
under the royal influence must be qualified by
the statements of the Irish annals, which reveal
a determined opposition between the Roman
and the national parties to be put down only
by the force of royal authority — " expulsio
familiae Iae trans Dorsum Britannic a Nectano
rege " (Ann. Tig. A.D. 717). Nectan drove the
Columban clergy, and those who favoured their
views, from Pictavia into Scotia, where there
was still a strong leaning to the old traditions
[Dunchadh, Faelchu (1)], and thus left the
Roman party in undisturbed possession (Lanigan,
E. H. Jr. iii. 158 sq. ; Skene, CAron. pp. clviii.
74, 354, and Celt. Scot. i. 134 sq. et al.; it
176 sq. et al. and Fordun, ii. pp. xlviii. sq.;
Grub, E. H. Scot, i 114 sq. ; Haddan and Stubbs,
Counc. ii. pt. i. 114 sq.). It is in connection
with this change that the legend of St. Bonifacius
Kiritinus, or Queretinus, is interpreted as be-
longing to the iutroductiou of a Roman mission
into Pictavia in the time of king Nectan, who is
said to have been baptized by St. Bonifacius at
Restennet. (Skene, CAron. 423, and Celt. Scot. ii.
230.) [Bonifacius Quebetinius.] [J. G.]
NECTAN (8), ST., the eldest of the children
of Brechan, king of Brecknock in Wales, i.e.
one of the Welsh devotees who settled on the
opposite coast of the Bristol Channel, where his
relics were preserved at a sanctuary on the
promontory of Hartland. Githa, Harold's
mother, founded a college of secular canons here
in honour of the saint by whose intercession
Digitized by
Google
NECTABIA
she believed her husband Godwin had been pre-
served from shipwreck (Freeman's Norman Con-
quest, ii. 358 ; Kerslake's Damnonia, 415) ;
' Hertitone ' is called her property in Domesday.
A notice of his legend is given in Leland's Col-
lectanea, iv. 153, and in William of Worcester
(104, 106, 125, 130, 131, 134). He had a sacred
spring, and the marks of his blood were to be
seen on the stones. (Whitaker's Catliedral of
Cornwall, ii. 94, 99.) His day was the 17th
Jane (Hampson's Kalendarivm, i. 454, bat
Nicolas's Chronology gives 14th Feb.). The name
was common among the Picts (Skene's Chron. of
Piets, p. cii.) and possibly occurs in the Natan-
leod, or king Nectan, who fell in battle against
Cerdic, A.D. 508, and whose name survives at
Netley (Earle's Saxon Chronicle, p. 281);
Forbes (Kalenaars of Scottish Saints, zvii. 417)
mentions an Irish saint of the name, whose day
was 8 Jan. The Welsh saint was commemorated
at other places in Devon as far as the ancient
Celtic kingdom of Damnonia extended (Oliver's
Xonattioon, Exon. 204, 207, 444, 445, 455 ; Kers-
lake's Damnonia, 415), and at a chapel in St.
Winnow near Lostwithiel (' Withiel's palace ')
ia Cornwall. All visitors to Tintagel will re-
member the romantic chasm whence the water
falls into the circular basin called St. Nighton's
Keive (Saxon cyf, a Tat ; keeve is a western
word still for a brewing tub). [C. W. B.]
NECTABIA, a deaconess (Soz. iv. 24 fin. ;
Tfflem. vi 494.) [Elpidios (5).] [C. H.]
NKCTABJU8 (1), martyr in Anvergne c.
265(Savaron, Orig. de Clermont, 46; Till. iv.
474). [C. H.]
NECTABIUS (8), May 5, bishop of Vienne
dr. 337-364. (Ado, Chron. in Pat. Lot. cxxiii.
92 n, 95 u ; Mart Hieron. ; Boll. Acta SS. 5 Mai.
ii. 9, 1 Aug. i. 51 ; Gall. Chr. xvi. 13 ; Tillem. iii.
624, xv. 69.) [C. H.]
KE0TABIU8 (8), a layman of noble birth
and high official position, to whom Basil ad-
dressed a consolatory letter on the death of his
only son, a young man of great promise (£p.
5 [188]). Basil also addressed a letter on the
same occasion, in a somewhat turgid rhetorical
style, to Nectarius's wife, in which he speaks of
the death of their son as a common blow to the
provinces of Cappadocia and Cilicia (Ep. 6 [1 89]).
There fa another letter of Basil's (Ep. 290 [323]),
addressed to a man of high official rank
bearing the same name, and perhaps the
tame person. There was an election of chor-
episcopi at hand, and Nectarius had evidently
been writing to urge the claims of a friend
ef his own. Basil courteously tells him that
he fa glad to receive testimony regarding
the candidates from trustworthy sources, but
that he alone was to be the judge after prayer
for divine direction, and that no one should urge
the cause of his friend with unseemly vehemence,
remembering that the office was a very respon-
sible one, and that one ought to wish and pray
not for the success of a friend, but that the
fittest man might be chosen. Tillemont is in-
clined to identify Basil's correspondent with the
future bishop of Constantinople, but without
sufficient grounds. [E. V.]
NECTABIUS (4), archbishop of Constan-
NECTABIU8
11
tinople, 9th from the foundation of the see,
A.D. 381-397 or 398, successor to St. Gregory
of Nazianzus. During the Second General
Council (Constantinople, A.D. 381) died St.
Meletius, bishop of Antioch. Gregory of
Nazianzns had been persuaded to accept the see
of Constantinople, partly in hope to heal the
schism at Antioch through the agreement that
Paulus, its other orthodox bishop, should be
universally acknowledged on the death of
Meletius, or Meletius on the death of Paulus.
These hopes were now dashed to the ground
by the election of the presbyter Flavianus in
succession to Meletius, on the ground that the
recognition of Paulus would be too great a
concession to the Latins. Archbishop Gregory
was so much grieved that he quitted the
council and the episcopal palace. Many of the
most influential men urged him not to resign ;
but his resolution was confirmed on the arrival
of the Egyptian bishops, who professed them-
selves unsatisfied with his election, probably
because he had been preferred to their country-
man, Maximus. The archbishop appeared one
day in the council and announced his resig-
nation, on which he had finally determined for
the sake of peace. The majority of the synod
accepted this step, many even gladly. Besides
the Egyptians there would be amongst his
opponents those who refused to carry out the
agreement about the succession at Antioch.
The Emperor was most unwilling to lose the
archbishop; but nothing remained except to
choose a successor. The bishops were quite at
a loss. Each had a candidate amongst his own
friends. Who could have thought it was to be
an unbapt ized layman ?
The praetor of Constantinople was a senator
named Nectarius, of noble family, born at
Tarsus in Cilicia, an elderly man, widely known
for his admirable character in every relation of
life, especially for his perfect good temper, the
excellence of his heart, and his strict integrity.
It was not generally known that he was still a
catechumen, and had never been baptized.
The praetor was at this moment preparing
for a journey to Tarsus, his own town. Before
starting he called on the bishop of Tarsus,
Diodorus, who was attending the council, to
ask if he could serve him by taking letters
home. Like others, the bishop's mind was full
of the election. The reverend appearance and
gentle manners of his visitor struck him so
forcibly, that he at once determined that he
should be his candidate. He said nothing, and
alleging some other business took the praetor to
call on the bishop of Antioch. The bishop of
Antioch laughed at the idea of such a competi-
tion with the many famous names which had
been suggested. However he asked Nectarius
to put off his journey a short time. The day
came when the emperor Theodosios asked the
bishops at the council to hand him in their lists
of candidates, reserving to himself the right of
choosing one from the whole number of names.
The bishop of Antioch with the rest gave in his
list, at the bottom of which he had in com-
pliment to the bishop of Tarsus written the
name of the praetor. The emperor, reading
over the lists, came to the bishop of Antioch's
paper. He stopped at the name of Nectarius.
Fixing his eyes on the paper and his finger on
Digitized by
Google
12
NECTAMU8
the name, he paused awhile in deep thought.
He began again, and read the list through ; then
he declared his choice. It was Nectarius.
The fathers were amazed. Who was this
Nectarius ? Whence did he come ? What was
his character ? It began to be said that he was
not even baptized. Astonishment at the
emperor's unexpected choice was redoubled.
Even the bishop of Tarsus seems not to have
known this disqualification. The startling
information did not more Theodosius. The
grumbles gradually ceased. The people of
Constantinople were delighted at the news.
The whole council agreed. Nectarius was
baptized. The dress of a neophyte was changed
for the robes of the bishop of the imperial city.
The praetor, a few days ago a catechumen,
stepped at once to the presidency of the Second
General Council. He ruled the church upwards
of sixteen years, and made an admirable prelate.
The name of Nectarius accordingly heads the
list of the 150 signatures to the canons of the
Second General Council. The 3rd Canon de-
clares that " the bishop of Constantinople shall
hold the first rank after the bishop of Rome,
because Constantinople is New Rome."
The bishops of the west were not disposed to
accept the election. Synods had been held the
year of the great Council of Constantinople at
Aquileia, at Rome, and at other places, and
letters had been exchanged with the emperors.
At a synod held in the autumn of A.o. 381
either at Milan or Aquileia, a letter was
written to Theodosius which upheld Maximus the
cynic in his claims to the see of Constantinople,
repudiating alike Gregory and Nectarius. They
asked for a common synod of east and west to
settle the question of the succession.
In accordance with this request, the emperor
Theodosius, soon after the close of the Second
General Council, summoned the bishops of his
empire to a fresh synod — not, however, as the
Latins had wished, at Alexandria, but at Con-
stantinople. He also twice invited St. Gregory,
the retired archbishop, but he excused himself
on account of weak health, and said that in his
opinion such assemblies promised very little
good. There were assembled here, in the
beginning of the summer of 382, very nearly
the same bishops who had been present at the
Second General Council. On their arrival they
received a letter from the Synod of Milan,
inviting them to a great General Council at
Rome. They replied that they must remain
where they were, because they had not made
preparations for so long a journey, and were
only authorized by their colleagues to act at
Constantinople. They sent three of their
number — Syriacus, Eusebius, and l'riscian — with
a Synodal Letter to pope Damasus, archbishop
Ambrose, and the other bishops assembled in
council at Rome. The letter, which is long and
interesting, is preserved by Theodoret. it is
sometimes printed in the Acts of the Second
General Council. At the end of it, the Greek
Fathers defend, by appealing to a canon of
Nicaea, the elevation of Nectarius to Constan-
tinople and of Flavian to Antioch. It has been
disputed whether this appeal is to the seventh
canon of Nicaea or to the fourth of Sardica ;
probability inclines to the former.
The Roman synod to which this letter was
NECTARIUS
addressed was the fifth under Damasus. No
certain account of its proceedings remains, nor
does it appear how its members treated the
question of Nectarius. Theodosius, however,
sent commissaries to Rome in support of the
statements of his synod, a fact which we learn
from the letters of pope Boniface. In his
fifteenth letter (to the bishops of Illyria) he-
shews that the church in Rome had finally
agreed to recognise both Nectarius and Flavian.
And St. Ambrose, in his sixty-third letter,
adduces the election of Nectarius as an approval
of his own by the east.
The good terms which subsisted between
Nectarius and his illustrious predecessor are
clear from six graceful letters which remain in
the collection of the correspondence of Gregory.
Iu the first he expresses his hearty good wishes
for his episcopate. In the second he commends
to him a certain friend of his named Pancratius,
whom Nectarius can serve. In the third he
asks hiin to obtain the interest of the Count
of the Household for one Georgius who has
suffered great losses and misfortunes. The
fourth is about the case of bishop Bosporius, by
which Gregory obtained from Theodosius a law
that bishops should only be tried by bishops.
The fifth commends to Nectarius a young niece
or cousin who is visiting the capital on business,
and is unskilled in affairs. The last is of great
importance, urging him not to be too liberal in
tolerating the Apollinarians.
In the first year of the episcopate of Nectarius
(or 388 ?), Theodosius was away fighting Maxi-
mus in the west. A false rumour coming to
Constantinople of the victory of Maximus, the
Arians burnt the episcopal palace.
In 383 the capacity of Nectarius was to be
tried by a third synod at Constantinople. In
spite of the decrees of bishops and emperor, the
Arians and Pneumatomachians continued their
efforts to spread their doctrines. Theodosius
summoned all parties to the imperial city for a
great discussion in June, hoping to reconcile all
differences. Before the proceedings began, he
sent for the archbishop and told him of hia
intention that all questions should be fully
debated. Nectarius returned home, full of pro-
found anxiety at this communication, and con-
sulted the Novatian bishop Agelius, who agreed
with him in doctrine, and was held in high
esteem on account of his personal piety.
Agelius felt himself unsuited and unskilled for
so grave a controversy; but he had a very
clever reader, Sisinnius, remarkably eloquent, a
brilliant scholar alike in philosophy and
theology, and to him he proposed to entrust the
argument with the Arians. Sisinnius, however,
thought that the suggested disputation might
only increase the divisions. He stated his
opinion before the archbishop, adding that it
would be better to produce the testimonies of
the old fathers of the church on the doctrine of
the Son, and first to ask the heads of the several
parties whether they accepted these authorities
or desired to anathematize them. So bold an
innovation would of course be rejected by the
people ; but if the sectaries should admit the
testimonies, it would then be for the orthodox
to produce their proofs.
The archbishop unfolded the scheme to the
emperor, who gladly agreed to it. When the
Digitized by
Google
NECTARIUS
"bishops met, the emperor pat this question:
Did they respect the teachers who lived before
the Arian division? They said yes. He then
asked : Did they acknowledge them sound and
trustworthy witnesses of the true Christian
doctrine? The divisions which this question
produced shewed that the sectaries were bent
on disputation. The emperor was extremely
displeased, and he now ordered each party to
draw up a written confession of its doctrine.
When this was done, the bishops were summoned
to the imperial palace, Kectarius and Agelius
for the orthodox, Demophilus (formerly bishop
of Constantinople) for the Arians, Eleusius
of Cyzicus for the Pneumatoroachians, and
Eunomius for the Anomoeans. The emperor
received them with kindness, took from
them their written confessions, and retired into
a room alone with these documents. After
praying God for enlightenment, he rejected
and destroyed all except that of the orthodox,
because they introduced a division into the Holy
Trinity.
Of these creeds only that of Eunomius has
come down. Ue called only the Father God,
and placed the Son among creatures as the
First-born of all creation, denying Him all
share in Divine Being and Glory. The Holy
Ghost he placed still lower, as created through
the Son and subject to the Son in everything :
the greatest, best, and most beautiful creation
of the Only-begotten. Eunomius threatened his
opponents with the judgment of God.
At this resolute conduct of the emperor, the
sectaries sorrowfully returned home, and tried
by letters to their adherents to comfort them,
chiefly as to the fact that so many now went
ever to the Nicene faith. Many were called,
they said, but few chosen. The emperor now
forbade all sectaries, except the Novatians, to
hold divine service anywhere for the future, to
publish their doctrines or to ordain clergy,
tinder threat of severe civil penalties. Gregory
of Nazianzus wrote two letters about this
•council, one addressed to the praetorian prefect
Posthumianus, the other to the consul Satur-
Ttinus.
In 385 died Pulcheria, the emperor's
daughter. The archbishop, diffident of his own
rhetorical powers, asked Gregory of Nyssa to
preach the funeral sermon. In the same year
Theodosius lost his wife Placilla. Nectarius
again asked the same celebrated preacher to
undertake the sad duty. Both orations remain.
In the latter, Gregory speaks with great respect
of the primate.
In 394 a number of bishops were invited
to Constantinople to the consecration of a
magnificent church built across the water at a
place called "The Oaks" by a praetorian
prefect Rufinua in honour of St. Peter and St.
Paul. Advantage was taken of their presence
to hold a synod for settling the affair of
Agapius and Gebadius, who both had claimed
the bishopric of Bostra- Gebadius had been
deposed in his absence by only two bishops.
Arabianus of Ancyra asked if this was right?
Kectarius supported the view of Arabianus.
Another bishop, Theophilus, reminded his
reverend brothers that both the disputing
bishops were now dead. For the future, if any
bishop must be tried, let all the bishops of the
NECTARIUS
13
province be present, and nothing be done in the
absence of the accused. To this Nectarius,
Klavianus, and all the others present agreed.
Towards the close of his episcopate, Nectarius
abolished the office of presbyter penitentiary,
whose duty appears to have been to receive
confessions before communion. His example
was followed by nearly all other bishops. The
presbyter penitentiary was added to the eccle-
siastical roll about the time of the Novatian
schism, when that party declined to commu-
nicate with those who had lapsed in the Decian
persecution. The presbyter penitentiary was a
public official in each diocese to reconcile
penitents to the church with greater comfort
than could be secured by confession before the
whole multitude of the church. Gradually he
had fewer of the lapsed to reconcile, and his
duties became more closely connected with pre-
paration for communion. An interesting ac-
count is given by Sozomenus of the penitential
ceremonies of the church in Rome, which were
conducted by the bishop himself. At Constan-
tinople a matron of rank had been confessing to
the presbyter penitentiary and had been ordered
by him to fast and to entreat God for forgive-
ness. She afterwards declared that while she
was staying in church for this purpose she was
violated by one of the deacons. Socrates says
that she confessed to habitual sin on these
occasions. The whole city was roused to angry
indignation by the story ; the disgrace of an
individual was cast upon the whole order.
Nectarius would do nothing in a hurry. He
long deliberated, but at any rate expelled the
offender from the diaconate. A presbyter
named Eudaemon, a native of Alexandria, and
others, advised him to leave the participation in
holy communion entirely to individual con-
sciences. The archbishop agreed with them,
and abolished the office of presbyter peni-
tentiary.
In collections of the Greek fathers a sermon
is attributed to Nectarius on the subject, " Why
the memory of the great saint and martyr
Theodorus is celebrated on the first Sunday in
Lent; and on fasting and almsgiving." The
death of TheodoruB happened in the Julian per-
secution, perhaps as much as thirty-five years be-
fore Nectarius might be preaching about it. The
preacher mentions that some of his hearers had
been eye-witnesses of the scene. The sermon is
given in Latin in the works of Chrysostom, by
Surius and Lipomann. In Greek it occurs in
several manuscript collections.
There are two letters of St. Basil belonging
to 358 or 359, addressed to Nectarius and his
wife on the death of their only son. This Nec-
tarius is thought by some to have been the arch-
bishop before his consecration. [NectaBIUS (3).]
Nectarius died in 397 or 398, and was
succeeded by St. John Chrysostom. (Theodoret,
Eccl. Hist, v. viii. &c. ; Socr. Hist. Eccl. v. viii.
&c. ; Sozom. Hist. Eccl. vii. viii. &c. ; Theoph.
Chronogr. 59, &c. ; Nectarii Arch. CP. Enarratiu
in Patrol. Graec. xxxix. p. 1821 ; Mansi, Condi.
torn. iii. p. 521, 599, 633, 643, 694, &c. ; Hefele,
Hist. Christ. Councils, tr. Oxenhani, Edinb. 1876,
vol. ii. p. 344, 347, 378, 380, 382, &c. ; Bonif.
Pap. Epist. xv. Migne, Patrol. Lat. xx., p. 779 ;
Ambros. Epist. lxiii. ; Greg. Nyss. Oratio ■»
funers Pvlch., Oratio Funeb. d» JPlacill. ; Greg.
Digitized by
Google
14
NECTARIUS
Naz. Epist. Ixxxviii., xcL, cli., clxxxr., clxxxvl.,
ocii. ; Basil. Epist. v. vi.) [W. M. S.]
NECTARIUS (8), decurion of Calama, a
pagan though the son of a Christian. (Aug. Ep.
91. 2.) Notwithstanding the edict of Hono-
rius, forbidding both pagan and other celebra-
tions, contrary to the Catholic faith {Cod. Theod.
xvi. tit. v. 40, 41, a.d. 407), the people of
Calama celebrated a pagan festival on June 1,
A.D. 408, and when the procession passed ostenta-
tiously in front of the door of the church, and
the clergy endeavoured to prevent this insult,
the mob broke out into riot and pelted the
church with stones. This outrage was repeated
a week later, and again a third time, notwith-
standing the divine punishment, in Augustine's
view, of a violent hail-storm. Churches and
houses were set on fire ; one Christian lost his
life, and others suffered injuries, being maltreated
by the mob in their endeavours to discover
the hiding-place of the bishop, Possidius. The
disturbance lasted until late at night. The
whole, says Augustine, might have been pre-
vented if the magistrates had only done their
dnty. Hearing of what had taken place, Au-
gustine went to Calama to enquire, and some of
the people, alarmed for the consequences of their
misconduct, came to him and entreated him to
pardon them. In this petition Nectarius, who
was absent at the time of Augustine's visit,
joined, and in a letter to him acknowledged the
fault of the Calamese, but expressing his own
love for his native place and his anxiety to leave
it in a flourishing condition, requested him ns a
Christian bishop of distinguished eminence, to
intercede for the people, and prevent severe
punishment, asserting that the pecuniary loss
was not great. (Aug. Ep. 90.) Augustine in
reply speaks in dignified language of the real
enormity of the outrage, and disclaims any wish
for severity, but puts the question to Nectarius
whether for example's sake it ought to remain
entirely unpunished. In an earlier part of his
letter he had taken the opportunity of shewing
how the practice of pagan worship led almost
necessarily to excess and immorality, and was
therefore justly suppressed by civil authority,
that in order for the country to be really pro-
sperous the people ought to adopt the true reli-
gion, which he hoped that Nectarius himself
might be led to do. (Ep. 91.) To this letter, after
eight months' delay, Nectarius replied. He
offers to his friend some high-flown compli-
ments, thanks him for his wish to lead him
to the heavenly oountry, but must ask him to
be forgiven for taking a primary interest in
his own earthly one, for, he says, philosophers
believe that those who do so will deserve places
hereafter in the other. He proceeds to en-
deavour to bespeak the favour of Augustine
for the Calamese offenders without distinction,
and to shew that a punishment by fine was
really worse than death itself, and that if faults,
as some philosophers think, are all alike, so also
remission of punishment ought to be extended to
all alike. He asks him to imagine the probable
misery of the people, and his own anxiety on
their behalf, if punishment should be enforced ;
and entreats him in the name of God and of his
own high character to shew favour towards them.
(Ep. 103.) To this letter of ostentatious, though
NECTARIUS
long-delayed, intercession, Augustine replied at
once, expressing in highly polished and courteous
sarcasm his own opinion concerning the delay,
asking whether Possidius the bishop of Calama,
who in his opinion shewed much more real con-
cern for the people than Nectarius, could in the
interval make any demand for greater severity
than at first had been intended, and called on
him to state publicly whether he had heard any
report of this being the case. As to the hardship
of inflicting some pecuniary loss on people who
have still the means of living luxuriously and
spending money on embellishments of their
public worship, those who were parties to the
injuries inflicted on Christians in the riot ought
not to complain of being made to pay for the
damage done, and Nectarius, who has the welfare
of his native place so strongly at heart, ought
rather to rejoice at some curtailment of the
superfluous means which the citizens possess for
displaying their contempt for the law. With
a sort of parody Nectarius had spoken of the
value of repentance in removing guilt, but
Augustine endeavours to set before him and the
people of Calama the true nature of Christian
repentance, with the earnest hope that they may
be led to see its necessity, and to aim at reaching
the heavenly country which Nectarius says is the
aim of all religious systems, but to which there
is only one true way. The Stoic doctrine that
all offences are equal, a doctrine which leads to
the conclusion not only that all are equally par-
donable, but that all are equally punishable, is
plainly absurd, and inconsistent both with the
other Stoic doctrine which excluded mercy from
the list of virtues, with the more amiable opinion
of Cicero (pro Ligario, 37, 38), and still more
with the doctrine of the church, which is really
more merciful than Nectarius himself. He begs
him to desist from the line of patronage which
he has adopted, and to be content with the course
which the church is pursuing, in the hope of
ultimately bringing the people to Christ. (Aug.
Ep. 104; Tillemont, xiii. 172; Flenry, U. E.
r. 22, 17.) We are not informed distinctly
as to the result of this controversy, but it is
certain that in 409 and subsequent years strin-
gent edicts were issued against opponents of the
Catholic faith, especially Jews and pagans. (Cod.
Theod. u. s. 46, 51.) [H. W. P.]
NECTARIUS (6), perhaps a bishop, to
whom the Commentary on the Book of Job, attri-
buted to Philippus, is addressed [Philippus].
(Tillem. xii. 351 ; Ceill. vii. 565). [J. G.J
NECTARIUS (7), believed to be the third
bishop of Digne (Gassend. Notit. Eccl. Diniats.
129 ; Oall. Chr. iii. 112 ; Tillem. xv. 65, 68, 84,
93, 94, 407), whose name appears in various
Gallic synods and in the letters of pope Leo the
Great. He was at the councils of Riex in 439,
and Orange in 441 (Mansi, v. 1196, vi. 441) ; at
Aries under Ravennius in 451 (vi. 162, 181 ;
Leo, Epp. 99 al. 76, 102 al. 77) ; at Aries in 455
(Mansi, vii. 907). In 445 he was deputed by
Hilary bishop of Aries to Leo (Fit. Mil. § 17
in Pat. Lot. 1. 1258). In 449 he was one of
the bishops of the province of Aries who addressed
Leo on the election of Ravennius (Leo, Ep. 40 al.
36), and in 450 one of those addressed by Leo
(Ep. 66 al. 50). [C. H.]
Digitized by
Google
NECTABIUS
NECTARIUS (8), Sept 13, sixteenth bishop
of Autun, mentioned by Venantius Fortunatus
in his Life of Germanns of Paris (§ 3 in Pat. Lat.
Ixixriii. 456), and present at the conncil of Or-
leans in 547 or 549. (Hansi, ix. 136 ; Gull. Chr.
it. 343 ; Boll. Acta 88. 13 Sept. iv. 59.) [C. H.]
NEFRIDIUS, of Narbonne [Nebridiub (6)].
NEFYDD (Nevydd) ap Rhun Dremradd
ap Brychan, Welsh saint in the end of the 5th
century, was bishop in North Britain, and slain
by the Picts and Saxons (Rees, W. S3. 145 sq. ;
Williams, /olo MSS. 519 sq. ; Skene, Celt. Scot.
L 160, ii. 36). Perhaps has given his name to
Keveth or Nevay, co. Perth (Bp. Forbes, Kah.
480). " * [J. G.]
NEMEBTTUS (1) (Nu^prios), a pnblic
advocate (fcSuros) addressed by Nilus (lib. ii.
ep. 210 in Pat. Gr. lxxiz.), in reply to an enquiry
as to whether the Holy Ghost were to be con-
sidered as of the same nature as the Father and
the Son. [C. H.]
NEMERTIUS (8), a monk who being in much
fear and despondency is addressed by Kilns (lib.
ii. epp. 129-132 ; Tillem. xiv. 197). [C. H.]
NEMERTIUS (3), a silentiarius, exhorted
by Xilus (lib. ii. epp. 12, 13) to diligence in
religions duties. [C. H.]
NKMESIANUS(l), bp.of Thubunae (ToJna).
Kumidian bp. addressed in Cyp. Ep. 62 (see JaMU-
asius) A.D. 253, addressed in Cyp. Ep. 70 (Syn.
Carth. sub Cyp. de Bapt. Haer. 1) Suffr. t. in
Setdt. Epp. Cone Carth. tab Cyp. de Bapt. 3.
One of the nine sent to Signs into the mines
soon after the council (addressed by Cyp. in Ep.
76, and with three others replying in Ep. 77).
These nine commemorated as martyrs in the
African Calendar on 10th Sept. (Morcelli, vol. i.
p. 226, voL ii. 372 ; Boll. Acta SS. 10 Sept. iii.
483). [E. W. B. ]
NEMESIANUS (8), boy martyr in Africa,
mentioned by Augustine (Serm. 286, § 2 and note,
in Patr. Lot. xxxviii. 1297 ; Tillem. iv. 174).
[C.H.]
NEMESTNUS (IX (N«M«r««(f), an official at
court of Jovian at Antioch in 363, when the
Ariana of Alexandria came to secure his favour
and the emperor recommended them to subscribe
the orthodox faith ; " Here are bishops," he said,
"and here also is Nemesinns" (Athan. Ep. ad
Jov. $ 4 in Pat. Gr. xxvi. 821 b). Tillemont
(viii. 223) supposes him a registrar ("un
gremer **), as though to receive and record their
subscriptions. [C. H.]
NEMESINU8 (8), a friend for whom Cyril
of Alexandria wrote his Dialogue and Thetaurus.
{Pat. Or. Ixxv. 1, 657 ; Ceillier, viii. 268, 273 j
Tillem. xiv. 665, 670.) [C. H.J
NEMESION (1) (Ke/woW), an Egyptian,
martyred at Alexandria in the reign of Decius,
by being burnt between two thieves. (Euseb. vi.
41 ; TOlem. iv. 252.) [C. H.]
NEMESION (8> elected bishop of Dioolea
NEMESIUS
15
in the province of Scodra in the room of Paulus,
who had been deposed, but who kept him out
by force. He appealed in person to Gregory
the Great, who gave him two letters, a.d. 602,
in support of his claims, addressed to Constantine
the metropolitan of Scodra, and to John bishop
of Prima Justiniana, the representative of the
Roman see in the East. (Greg. lib. xii. ind. iv.
epp. 30, 31 ; Jane, B.P. num. 1463, 1464.)
[C. H.]
NEMESIUS (1), governor of Cappadocia, a
friend and correspondent of Gregory Nazianzen.
He shewed the aged bishop much kindness towards
the close of his life, which he gratefully records
in a long poem of between 300 and 400 hexa-
meters (Carm. 62, torn, ii.pp. 140-146). Nemesius
was still a pagan, and Gregory devotes the greater
part of his poem to an exposure of the folly of
idolatry and exhortations to embrace the elevating
and purifying doctrines of Christianity. Nemesius
is described by the grateful Gregory as a man of
considerable literary eminence, whose eloquence
as a pleader had gained him distinction in the
law courts. Cappadocia was his first province,
and he does not seem to have held it very long,
as he was once more his own master and was
setting out on a journey when Gregory wrote to
him his 184th letter. In a short subsequent
letter (Ep. 185) Gregory upbraids him for having
passed by his place of residence without apprising
him or visiting him. Gregory wrote to Nemesius
in favour of a certain Tneodosins, who was ex-
tremely anxious to be relieved from a commission
involving a long journey and protracted absence
from his family (Ep. 79) ; and of a kinsman of
his own named Valentinian, who (though the
letter is obscure) appears to have had an accident
by no fault of his own with a public vehicle and
to have killed the horses, himself being thrown
out and injured. Gregory begs that Nemesius
will be content with reprimanding him, and not
make him pay the price of the horses (Ep.
183). Nemesius was favourably inclined to
Christianity. After quitting office he visited
Gregory for the purpose of discussing the subject
of religion. His arguments appear to have had
some influence with Nemesius, and to have in-
spired the hope that the future interview which
he promised would result in the convention of
one to whom he owed so much for the considerate
kindness manifested towards him (Ep. 184) :
whether these hopes were verified is not known.
We may safely reject the suggestion favoured by
Tillemont (Mem. Eccl. ix. pp. 541, 607) that the
governor of Cappadocia is the same with the
bishop of Emesa, the author of a work De natwa
hominis, the second and third chapters of which
appear by mistake among the works of Gregory
Nyssen, under the title De anima (torn. ii. pp.
157-201 ed. Migne). (Cf. Fabric Jiibl. Graec.
lib. v. c 14, § vi.) [E. V.]
NEMESIUS (8) (Ntufotos), various persons
addressed by Isidore of Pelusium (Patr. Gr.
lxxviii.); one on Ps. xlix. 20, and Prov. xiii. 16
(lib. ii. ep. 135, Iv. 39) ; another on the love of
riches (v. 36) ; a magistrianus on Deut. v. 27 ;
Matt. vii. 18 : 1 Cor. ii. 14 (iv. 81) ; a praetor
warned against arrogance and severity (1. 47).
[C.H.]
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
16
NEMESIUS
NEMESIU8 (3), Aug. 1, confessor in the
Pagus Lisuinus (Usuard. Mart.), thought to be
Lisieux. (Boll. Acta SS. 1 Aug. i. 46.)
[C. H.]
NEMESIUS (4), bishop of Emesa in the
latter half of the 4th century, of whom no-
thing is certainly known but that he was the
author of a rather remarkable treatise, *■«/>!
ipiatus dvSpcenov, De Natura Hominis, of which
chapters ii. and iii. appear as a separate work,
eutitled rtpl tyvxns, de Anima, among the writ-
ings of Gregory Nyssen, being erroneously
ascribed to that father. Tillemont and Galland
are inclined to identify him with the governor
of Cappadocia, friend of Gregory Nazianzen
(No. I). But he was certainly a heathen when
Gregory addressed him, and though (as Galland
holds, Bibl. I'atr. torn, vii.) it is not impossible
that he may have subsequently become a convert
to Christianity and have attained the episcopate,
it is hardly probable, and there is not the least
evidence in favour of such an hypothesis, which
is decidedly rejected by Fabrici us (BiW.Graec. viii.
448 ; and Tillemont, M€m. Ecclis. ix. 541, 607).
Le Quien (Or. Christ, ii. 839) places Nemesius
fifth among the bishops of Emesa, between
Paul I., who attended the council of Seleucia,
a.d. 359, and Cyrincus, the friend of Chrysostom.
Cave throws unfounded suspicion on the fact of
his having been bishop of Emesa, and says that all
is uncertain about him (Hist. Lit. i. 276). The
date of his writing may however be determined
with tolerable certainty by his mentioning the
doctrines of Apollinaris and Eunomius and
the Origenists, but not those of Nestorius,
Eutyches, or Pclagius. The last named he could
hardly have avoided mentioning if his teaching
had been known to him, in the portion of his
treatise relating to free will. That he was
bishop of Emesa is stated in the title of his
treatise in the various MS. copies, and by
Maximui (ii. 153, ed. Combefis) and Anastasius
Sinaita (Quaest. xviii. and xxiv.) in their quota-
tions from his work. He is also quoted, though
without his name, by Joannes Damascenus, Elias
Cretensis, Meletius, Joannes Grammaticus, and
others. The treatise of Nemesius is a pleasing
and interesting little work, which will well
reward perusal, and has received much praise
from able judges of style and matter. Brucker
(flirt. Crit. Philosoph. iii. 530) writes of it thus :
".Si lectionis varietas, verborum delectus, ratio-
num pondus, judicii tenor, mcthodi ordo, dis-
pntandi acumen, argumenti demum dignitas
tractatnm aliquem lectoribus suis conciliare
poterit, utique hie fuerit longe commcndatUsi-
mu»." Nemesius establishes the immortality of
the soul against the philosophers, vindicates
free will, opposes fatalism, defends God's provi-
dence, and proves by copious examples the wisdom
and goodness of the Deity. As a natural philo-
sopher Nemesius has obtained celebrity by
indications given in his book that he was not
ignorant of the circulation of the blood and the
functions of the bile (cc. xxiv. xxviii. pp. 242,
260, ed. Matthaei).' The book was first published
in a Latin translation by G. Valla, Lugd. 1538.
The first edition of the Greek text was by Nica-
sius Ellebodius, Antv. 1565. It also appeared
in the Auctarium Duceanum, Paris, 1629, ii.
466 ; and in the Bibl. Patrum, Morell. xii. 748 ;
NENNIUS
also in the Bibl. Vett. Pair, of De la Bigne,
1609, torn. viii. in the Mayn. Bibl. 1618, torn. v.
pars 3, and 1654, torn. xii. ; and the Maxima
Bibl. 1677, torn. viii. It was published at
Oxford, 1671, with copious notes, by Dr. (after-
wards Bp.) Fell. The best edition is that by C. F.
Mathaei, Halae, 1802. Nemesius's treatise has
been translated into most modern European
languages, into Italian by Pizzimcnti (no date),
English, G. Wilkes, 1636 and 1657, German by
Osterhammer, Salzburg, 1819, and French by
Thibault (J. R.), Paru, 1844. [E. V.]
KEMESSIANUS (Ne^eo-«-/ovoj)» * "cholasti-
cus addressed by Isidore of Pelusium (lib. iii. ep.
339 in Pat. Or. lxxviii.), censuring the too ex-
clusive application of the Old Testament to
Christ. [C. H.j
NENNITA, mother of St. David of Menevia
(O'Hanlon, Ir. SS. iii. 6). [Nonna.] [J. G.]
NENNIUS, British historian, presents a
study akin to that of Gildas, alike in the indeci-
sive results but unlike in the breadth of histo-
rical enquiry and traditionary material. Nennius
is uniformly spoken of as author of the Eutogium
Britarmiae she Historia Britonum, but this is
ascribed to others besides Nennius. Unless as
author, compiler, or editor of this work, he has
uo existence, and this ascription of authorship
rests upon a late and doubtful basis, yet for con-
venience and from long-established usage he will
probably continue to be quoted simply as the
author. At the same time, to quote Stevenson
(Nennius, p. v.) : " The information which is ex-
tant concerning Nennius, the presumed author
of the work entitled ' Historia Britonum,' is so
scanty, and the literary history of that produc-
tion, external and internal, is so obscure and
contradictory, that we may despair of being able
to decide, with any degree of accuracy, either as
to the age, the historical value, or the author-
ship of this composition." It will be most con-
venient to consider (a) The work itself, (b) The
authorship, (c) The time, (d) The editions.
(a) The Historia Britonum, contained in at
least thirty-three MSS., which date from the
10th to the 17th century, and presenting great
variety in matter, arrangement, and dates, pro-
fesses to give a history of Britain to the arrival
of the Saxons. It gives the usual Celtic tradi-
tions in a confused form, traces the Britons to
Brutus, the Scots to the immigration under the
Spaniard Partholomaeus, and ends with the
foundation of the kingdom of North umbria.
A.D. 547, or its establishment on Penda's defeat
and death in the year 655. It is of no special
historical value, and is of even less interest than
the Historia et Epistola Gildac, to which it bears
a certain relation, as well as to the Historia
Britonum Galfredi Moncmutensis.
(b) If we accept the two prologues as genuine
and conclusive, we must believe that Nennius
was disciple of Elbodus (d. a.d. 809), and under
a priest Beulanus whom he styles master, and
to whom he inscribes a copy of his work with
some verses to his son Samuel ; that he was
member of some religious community, compiled
his history " seniorum jussu," and finished it in
the year 858, being the twenty-fourth vear of
Mervin king of the Britons ; and that he
Digitized by
Google
NENNIUS
gathered his materials from the traditions,
writings, and monuments of the ancient British
inhabitants, from the Roman annals, from the
chronicles of the holy fathers Jerome, Prosper,
and Euscbius, and from the histories of the Scots
and Saxons. But both prologues are of late and
very doubtful authority, being not older than
the 12th century, and therefore usually held as
spurious, while the date 858 cannot synchronise
with the twenty-fourth year of Mervyn, which
would probably be 843. If a later writer was
only embodying an earlier tradition with regard
to the authorship, we could understand the
anachronism through ignorance, but not feel
otherwise supported by the authority. But the
weight of earlier tradition is to attribute the
Historia Britonum to Gildas without mention of
Nennius, and Stevenson (lb. liii.) says : " It is
an important fact, that one of the earliest manu-
scripts, if not the earliest, extant, ascribes it
neither to Nennius nor to Gildas, but to one
whom it styles Mark the Hermit." This Mark
was an Irish bishop who became an anchorite at
St. Medard's at Soissons about A.D. 870. The real
author is thus unknown ; but Nennius, if more
than a name, probably lived in the first half of
the 9th century. The works ascribed to Nennius
as the monk of Bangor in the 6th or 7th cen-
tury are evidently either feigned, or, if they ever
existed, spurious and based upon the Hist. Brit.
(For lists see Balaeus, Brit. Script. Sum. f. 36 ;
Pitseus, DelU. Angl. Script, i. 106; Cave, hist.
Lib. ii. 217 ; Tanner, Bibi. 542 ; Wright, B. B.
Lit. 135 A.-S. per. ; Nicolson, Eng. Hist. Libr.
33, 3rded.)
(c) The date assigned to Nennius, when con-
sidered as the author of the Historia Britmum,
has varied from A.D. 620 (Gait,' Praef. ad Led.)
to 858 (Prol. i.), and even as late as 946, the
5th year of Eadmund king of the Angles
(M. H. B. 53 n.> The cause of this is the diffi-
cult question of the chronology of the work
itself, and hence that of its composition. There
appears to be no room for doubt, amid the end-
less corruptions and interpolations of the extant
manuscripts, that it is a compilation which dates
from the 7th or beginning of the 8th century, if
not even a century earlier, in the time of Gildas,
and has received additions at the hands of un-
known authors, whose work can be but guessed
at in the attempt to disentangle the original
form from the later recensions. But the editor
of Mom. Hist. Brit. (Introd. Rem. Chron. p. 107
sq.) traces five editions (a.d. 674, 823, 858, 907,
977), distinguishable by their chronology ; while
Dr. Skene (Four An. B. Wales, i. 37 sq. and
Chron. xxiv. sq.) supposes a Welsh original
translated into Latin, and prints separately the
Saxon and Welsh Additions to the Hist. Britonum,
a.d. 974 (Chron. 11), and the Irish and Pictish
Additions, a.d. 1040-72 (lb. 23). The Irish
version of Nennius, Hist. Brit., is a translation
made by Gilla Caemhain (d. a.d. 1072), into
which he has introduced many purely Irish
matters without apology for interpolation. (See
this version published by Ir. Arch. Society, 1848,
with translation and notes by Todd and Herbert;
0*Corry, Ir. MS. Mat.)
(d) Editions of Nennius, Hist. Brit., are by Gale
(Hist. Brit. Script, xv. 1691); Gunn (Nennius,
Hist. Brit., with English version and notes, 1819);
Stevenson (Nennii Hist. Brit. 1838); Giles
CHRIST. BIOOB-— VOL. IT.
NEONAS
17
(Hist. Ane. Brit. ii. 1847) ; and Mon. Hist. Brit.
1848 (Bed. Brit, sine Hist. Brit. auct. Nennio),
and under the name of Marcus Anachoreta, by
Cardinal Mai, App. ad Opera, pp. 99-111.
Dr. Giles has translated Nennius, and followed
Gunn's Latin (Bohn, Six Old Eng. Chron.).
(See on Nennius, Gale's Nennius, Pref. ad Lect. ;
Stevenson, Nenn. Pref. ; Man. Hist. Brit. Pref.
and Introd. ; Irish Nennius, by Todd and Herbert ;
Wright, Biog. Brit. Lit. 185 sq., A.S. period ;
Gunn, Nenn. Pref. ; Hardy, Descript. Cat. i. pt. i.
318-37, pt. it 852 ; Lappenberg, Engl, under
A.-S. Kings, ed. Thorpe ; Herzog, ReaUEncykl.
I. 261.) [J. G.]
NENNOOA, ST. (Ninnoca, Nenooc),
daughter of king Brechan, migrated to Brittany,
and founded the nunnery of Lan Ninnok, in 6th
century. Her day was 4th June. (Acta Sanctorum,
June, i. 407 to 411 ; Haddan and Stubbs, ii.
83, 86 ; Proceed, of Boy. Irish Acad. vii. 373.)
[C. W. B.]
NEO, ofSeleucia. [Neosas.]
NEO (1) (Neon), Jan. 17, martyr at Langres.
[Speusippus.]
(2) A child martyr, c. 257 (Baron, ann. 259,
xv. xvii. ; Tillem. iv. 29, 33, 34).
(8) A martyr at Aegae. [Claudius (4).]
(Baron, anu. 285, iv. ; Tillem. iv. 414 ; Ceill. ii.
465, 466.) [C. H.]
NEO (4), bishop of Laranda, in Lycaonia,
probably at the beginning of the 3rd century,
permitted the layman Euelpis to preach in his
presence. His example is cited as a precedent
by Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of
Caesarea to justify their having given similar
permission to Origen (Enseb. H. E. vi. 19).
[G. S.]
NEO (6), a Pamphylian bishop, an antagonist
of the Messalian heresy at the end of the 4th or
beginning of the 5th century. (Phot. Cod. 35 ;
Ceill. viii. 572 ; Tillem. xii. 432.) [G. T. S.]
NEOM (Neon, Neonas), archbishop of.
Ravenna, received from pope Leo (Ep. 135) a
reply upon the case of those who had been carried
into captivity and did not know about -their
baptism in infancy (Migne, Pat. Lot. t. liv. 1191 ;
Ceillier, Aut. Sacr. x. 8). As a contemporary
of St. Leo (A.D. 440-461), he was later than A.D.
425-430 as given by Agnellus (Pont. Ep. Eav.
ap. Migne, Pat. Lat. t. cvi. 451, 764), and pro-
bably succeeded Petrus Chrysologus in A.D. 454
[Chkysoloocs], which would allow the letter to
be in the year 458 as given by Ceillier (76.) and
Fleury (H. E. xxix. 11), but Gams (Ser. Episc.
717) gives A.D. 449-452. He built the church
of St. Peter the Great, and founded one called
Tricolis, but in Agnellus, Vita S. Neonis (Migne,
Pat. Lat. t. cvi. 517) there is no history of
him: he died 11 Feb., and was buried in the
church of St. Peter. [J. G.]
NEONAS (Neo), bishop of Selencia in
Isauria at the time of the synod of 359, when
he allowed his church for the ordination ol
C
Digitized by
Google
18
NEOPHYTUS
Anianus to the see of Antioch. At the close of
the year he signed the letter of the deputies of
the synod of Seleucia to those of Rimini (Hilar.
Fraj. x. in Pat. Lot. x. 705). In 360 he was
deposed by the Acacian synod of Constantinople.
(Soc. ii. 42; Soz. iv. 24; Le Quien, ii. 10U ;
CeiU. iv. 578 ; Tillem. vi. ill, 486, 493.)
[C. H.]
NEOPHYTUS (1), a martyr at Nicaea, aged
fifteen, under Diocletian (BolL Acta SS. 20 Jan.
ii. 297 ; Tillem. t. 159). [C. H.]
NEOPHYTUS (8) (N«#>uros) a monk upon
whom Nilus (lib. hi. ep. 301 in Pal. Or. lxxix.)
urges that the very least precepts ought not to
be disregarded [C. H.]
NEOPLATONISM. This profound and
most remarkable system of philosophy took its
rise in Alexandria, in the person of Ammonias
Saccas, about the beginning of the 3rd cen-
tury A.D. Its most celebrated master, and by
far the most powerful of all those whose
treatises have come down to us, was Plotinus,
the pupil of Ammonius Saccas. Next to bim in
reputation comes the last great master of the
school, Proclus, in whose time philosophy had
receded from all other places where it had once
flourished, and taken refuge in its first cradle
and most congenial home— Athens; in which
place, more than forty years after the death of
Proclus, the philosophic schools were at last
auppressed by the zealously orthodox Justinian,
a.d. 529. Between Plotinus and Proclus lie Por-
phyry and Jamblichus, some of whose treatises
have come down to us ; Amelius, of whom we
possess only fragments ; the celebrated and un-
fortunate Hypatia ; the emperor Julian, with
his friends and advisers, Sallustius, Aedesius,
Maximus, Chrysanthius ; the estimable and in-
telligent Hierocles ; and Syrianus, the master of
Proclus. The duration of the school in its
: separate identity was thus about three centuries
and a quarter, though individual Neoplatonists
are found even in the latter half of the 6th
century A.D.
What is the central character of Keoplatonism ?
It is known as a philosophy, as a Platonic philo-
sophy. And, indeed, it does in great part con-
sist, and especially in the pages of Plotinus, of
that penetrating research into first principles,
into our own nature, bodily and spiritual, and
the nature of the universe around us, and that
attempt at systematic exposition, which is what
we understand by philosophy. But mingled
with this is another element. Keoplatonism
seeks not merely to give men clear knowledge,
but also to make them enter into a certain high
state of feeling, not without kinship to religious
emotion, a state which Plotinus himself termed
" ecstasy " (fmrrairo), and of which no better
description can be given than that contained in
the final and culminating words of his great
treatise : " Such is the life of the gods ; such
also is the life of divine and happy men ; detach-
ment from all things here below, disdain of
earthly pleasures, the flight of the soul towards
God, on whom it gazes face to face and alone."
Now, in so far as Neoplatonism is pure theory,
its origin can be traced with very fair, though
not absolute, certainty. It is a kind of summing
up of the results of all previous Greek and
NEOPLATONISM
Roman metaphysics ; it would be too much to
say, of all previous philosophy ; for natural
science and political philosophy are alike left out
of its range, the former, doubtless, by reason of
the defectiveness of the school in accurate ex-
ternal observation, the latter from the circum-
stances of the time. But in metaphysics there
is scarcely any preceding theory (unless the
Epicurean atomic theory be considered an excep-
tion) to which Neoplatonism is not in some way
or other affiliated ; in particular it sought with
great diligence to reconcile Plato and Aristotle,
though always preserving the supremacy of the
former. Nor was it content with inquiring into
the Greek and Roman systems. It is generally-
conceded that the principal philosophers of the
school knew and were influenced by the works of
Philo ; and there is reason to think that a still
wider influence, foreign to Greece and Rome,
extended to them. As to this point, indeed,
there is no agreement among critics. Vacherot
boldly says that the Alexandrian philosophy is
"essentially and radically oriental." This is
one of those broad assertions which is seldom
left in peaceful possession of the field of inquiry ;
and Zeiler, in criticising it, goes so far to the
other extreme as to consider all the element*
which contributed to form Neoplatonism, apart
from the recognised classical sources, of insignifi-
cant weight. It is, he thinks, quite in the normal
line of development of Platonic, Aristotelian,
and Stoic thought (Zeiler, Die Philosophie der
Griechm, vol. v. p. 394). This is a conclusion
which, in the judgment of the present writer,
cannot stand; though Zeller's great learning,
and the care which he has bestowed on this
question in particular, entitle his opinion to most
respectful consideration. It may be conceded
that Vacherot goes too far when he affirms that
Neoplatonism teaches a theory of the emanation
of all things from the Deity manifestly derived
from some oriental source. The question is not
one of technical language, and any conclusion
about it based merely upon some one specific
doctrine, such as that of emanation, is neces-
sarily unsatisfactory. When, however, we
consider the entire tone and character of Neo-
platonism, it is perfectly impossible to consider
that it merely continues the line of which
Stoicism was the immediately preceding link.
In fact, in so far as Neoplatonism was derived
from Greek sources, it was not, in its main bias,
the natural development of any then existing
philosophy, but was a retrocession, as its name
implies, to the original Platonic philosophy ; a
retrocession, however, in which, while many
elements are omitted, others, and especially the
religious side, are pressed with a force, a fervour,
and a comprehensiveness excelling anything that
we find in Plato himself. We hare then to in-
quire why the Alexandrian philosophers were
thrown back for their principles to the first
seminal ground of all Greek ethical philosophy ;
why they were forced out of the natural de-
velopments of their own age ; and why, being so
forced back, they resumed the original Platonic
impulse so exclusively in the religious line, and
resumed it in this line with such force and en-
thusiasm.
It must be observed that Zeiler himself lays
great stress on this religious side of Neoplaton-
ism, and he attributes it partly to the example
Digitized by
Google
NEOPLATONISM
ef Stoicism, partly to the general spirit of the
time : " a time," he says, " in which the nations
had lost their independence, the popular religions
their power, the national forms of culture their
peculiar stamp, in part, if not wholly ; in which
the supports of life on its material, as well as on
its spiritual side, had been broken asunder, and
the great civilised nations of the world were
impressed with the consciousness of their own
downfall, and with the prophetic sense of the
approach of a new era ; a time in which the
longing after a new and more satisfying form of
spiritual being, a fellowship that should embrace
all Ipeoples, a form of belief that should bear
men oTer all the misery of the present, and
tranquillise the desires of the soul, was uni-
versal " {Die Philosophic der Qriechen, vol. v.
pp. 391-2). It has already been intimated that
the narrow, stern, practical religion of Stoicism
cannot rightly be held to be the parent of the
enthusiastic, idealistic religion of Plotinus, And
with respect to what Zeller says of the general
spirit of the age, it is true, no doubt, that there
was a general feeling of depression, unrest, and
dissatisfaction in the world at this time ; it is not
true that the remedy was by any means univer-
sally looked for in religion, still less in such a
religion as Plotinus taught. For instance, no
one, perhaps, expressed the sense of dissatisfac-
tion and depression here referred to so powerfully
as the great critic Longinus at the close of his
treatise "On the Sublime ;" but Longinus, not-
withstanding hit intimate friendship with the
leading Neoplatonists, had not imbibed their
spirit ; and accordingly we find that he looked
for the restoration of his age and the removal of
its ills, not through the means of a religious
revival, but by a return to the ancient repub-
licanism of Athens. Not only did he entertain
this opinion theoretically, but he endeavoured to
realise it practically under Zenobia at Palmyra,
an attempt which led to his own death, a heroic
martyr to an ideal of less permanent value than
in his enthusiasm he believed. It is needless
to say that many had recourse to less worthy
remedies, in the way of superstition and magic,
or of keen and cold satire, as in the case of
Locian. But if we want to find any religious
spirit in that age strong enough and broad enough
to be considered as in any way the actuating
source of Neoplatonism, we shall find it in
Christianity alone.
And it is to Christianity that Vacherot wonld
seem naturally to refer (though whether he
intended the reference is uncertain) in the
following passage, which goes to the heart of
the matter : " It is known by authentic testi-
mony that Platonism was, of all Greek doctrines,
the one which obtained least success in the
Museum [of Alexandria]. When Ammonius
appeared, the schools of the Museum had fallen
into the most miserable impotence ; no sign of
life, no symptom of change announced that a
new philosophy would arise there. The impulse
came from without. It was the spectacle of the
great religious schools of the East in contrast
with the pitiable state of Greek philosophy ; it
was, above all, the inspiration of a new spirit
that aronsed the Neoplatonism of Alexandria.
Far from being its origin and guiding principle,
one can scarcely say that the Museum was even
the cradle of Neoplatonism " (vol. i. p. 341). Of
NEOPLATONISM
19
the " great religious schools of the East," which
Vacherot here mentions, it is undeniable that
Christianity was by far the most powerful, by
far the most likely to have influenced Neopla-
tonism.* And when we find that Ammonius, the
founder of Neoplatonism, was born a Christian ;
when we remember the great mutual intercourse
between Christian theologians and heathen
Platonists at Alexandria, and find that men of
such power as Origen and Clement were deeply
influenced by Platonism, and could hardly have
been so influenced without exercising a reciprocal
influence in return; when we find Amelius, the
pupil of Plotinus, speaking in highly respectful
terms of the doctrine contained in the opening
verses of the fourth gospel, it is hardly pos-
sible to avoid the conclusion that the influence
here indicated was a real and effective one. But
we must be careful not to mistake its nature.
How far Ammonius or Plotinus borrowed doc-
trinal elements from Christianity is uncertain.
To the present writer it seems probable that the
character of the Supreme Deity in the Neo-
platonic system, the emphatic unity attributed
to him, and the fatherly relation in which he is
said to stand towards men, were suggested — cer-
tain that they were strongly promoted — by the
kindred elements in Christianity. No one surely
can doubt that the strong religious bias in the
philosophy of Fichte (a philosophy so much
resembling that of Plotinus) was due to Chris-
tianity ; though Fichte, like Plotinus, appears to
seek to found religion on a system of intellectual
abstraction which, in truth, it is not easy to re-
concile with religious feeling.
Still, as has been said, the amount of direct
borrowing which took place on the part of the
Neoplatonists from Christian doctrine is an un-
certain point. The belief that the trinity of the
Neoplatonists was derived from the Christian
doctrine of that name, though assumed by
Cousin, is an unsafe supposition. It is the in-
direct influence of Christianity on Neoplatonism
which is so important, and which has hitherto
been too little noticed. The nature of this
influence is indicated precisely by Vacherot in
the passage above quoted. The philosophers
were kindled by a sense of rivalry ; they felt,
present in the world and actually working, a
power such as they themselves sought to exer-
cise, moralising and ordering the hearts of
men ; and this stirred them to find a parallel
power on their own side, and the nearest ap-
proach to it, both in character and degree, was
found in Plato. To Plato they attached them-
selves with the fervour of pupils towards an
almost unerring master ; but they selected from
Plato those elements which lay on the same
line as that Christian teaching whose power
elicited their rivalry.
At all events, this seems by far the most
• It has been suggested that Buddhism may have
been an originating cause of Neoplatonism. But the
similarities between the two Bystems are rather super-
ficial than deep : Buddhism, while far more fall of moral
teaching, Is far less hopeful and enthusiastic than
Neoplatonism. And India was too remote from the
Roman world to be able to affect it with any powerful
Impulse, though the Hindoo systems were not unknown
in It: they were, however, objects rather of curiosity
than of knowledge.
c a
Digitized by
Google
20
NEOPLATONISM
probable account of the religious bias of Neo-
platonism, and of the way in which that
religions bias overflowed into theoretical philo-
sophy. It is impossible quite certainly to know
the whole truth about influences in so remote a
past, which must often hare been so apt from
their nature to be buried in secrecy. But
alternative accounts of the matter do not easily
suggest themselves. Though, for instance, we
might attribute something to the personality of
Ammonias or of Plotinus in themselves, some
power parallel to that which was exerted by the
heroic life and death of Socrates ; yet, were this
an influence of sufficient force to create by itself
a philosophy such as Neoplatonism, it could
hardly have helped leaving a mark on history of
a kind that we do not now find there. It is to
be observed, as an indication that the Alexandrian
philosophers were not altogether likely them-
selves to be able to penetrate into the roots of
their own teaching, that, with all their reverence
for Plato, the true significance of the personality
of Socrates was in a singular degree ignored by
them ; the great master of Plato is to them
nothing more than Plato's dramatic mouthpiece.
In Plotinus, we find Neoplatonism at its very
best. It is a system which, in his hands, is far
from deserving the disparagement with which it
is sometimes mentioned. It is a most unjust
accusation against Plotinus to affirm, or imply,
that he preferred obscurity for obscurity's sake.
A system that deals strenuously with first prin-
ciples is not often (to judge by the philosophies
that have hitherto appeared in the world) easy
reading : but it may be questioned if Plotinus,
when the true key to his meaning is found, is so
difficult as Plato. The comparison is seldom
fairly made ; the incidental advantages of Plato
are so many, in his exquisite dramatic art, in the
historical interest which surrounds his person-
ages, in the familiar light which the researches
of many generations have shed upon his principal
theories, that questions respecting the real
meaning of his philosophy are apt to be regarded
as in a more subordinate position than is possible
in the case of a writer who, like Plotinus, has
nothing bat his philosophy to depend upon.
However this may be, the sincerity and intellec-
tual energy of Plotinus are not to be questioned ;
and it is impossible, in any account of Neopla-
tonism, not to give some statement, however
brief, of his philosophical position.
God, the highest principle of the universe, is,
according to Plotinus, known to us through
self-reflection ; not indeed through every kind of
self-reflection, but through such alone as shews
to us the dignity of the spiritual part of our
nature as compared with external things. When
we know and feel our own worth in respect of
our soul, the spontaneous reflection is forced
upon us — What is that universal soul which
breathes life not only into ourselves, but into all
nature, penetrating through all regions of earth,
sea, and sky ? But next, says Plotinus, when
we through our own soul have attained to a
right eBteem and reverence for the universal
soul, the next necessary thought is this — What
is that mind and intelligence by which the
universal soul receives and preserves its own
divine life-giving power? And the last and
highest step is this — What is that first single
cause, that absolute unity and goodness, from
NEOPLATONISM
which, in the Divine nature, even mind and
intelligence have their birth? These are the
three constituent elements in the Divine nature,
as regarded by Plotinus : — first, absolute unity
and goodness ; secondly, mind or intelligence ;
thirdly, the life-breathing soul. The whole
universe is set in motion, and receives its power
from the Divine Being, each member in the
hierarchy of existences receiving strength from
those above it. (See especially the beginning of
the 5th Ennead, and for what follows, the 4th
and 5th books of the 3rd, and the 3rd and 4th
books of the 4th Ennead.) Between God, or
the absolute First Cause, and man, intervene,
first, the high heavenly powers, which, on their
spiritual side, come nearest to the pure Divinity,
and on their material side are known to us as the
starry constellations ; and next, the powers (not
very satisfactorily defined by Plotinus) which
have a superhuman nature, but yet are in part
mixed with sensuous elements. There can be
little doubt that Plotinus was led to include these
superhuman or demonic powers in his system
through a leaning to the popular heathen
religion, which, however, would not have pre-
vailed with him if it had not been for the great
example of Plato. After the demonic powers
comes man; lower again than man are the
brutes ; till true or spiritual existence dwindles
into feebleness, and at last vanishes in the realm
of mere earthy matter. All spirit, and the
human soul among other spirits, is, according to
Plotinus, essentially immortal ; but it may rise
or fall in the scale of existent beings in propor-
tion to its own excellence. Moreover, in every
link of this great chain, the higher is perpetually
giving strength to the lower, and raising it to its
own level ; and the highest state to which any
being can attain is that intimate union with the
supreme God, in which thought and sense are
alike swallowed up in a spiritual state more noble
than either — a state which Plotinus designated
by the name of ecstasy. To this state Plotinus
did not think that man could attain, except
transiently and occasionally, while he remained
in this fleshly life.
Perhaps, even from so brief and imperfect s>
sketch as the above, it may be seen that the phi-
losophy of Plotinus was one of remarkable power
and symmetry. More than that ; though it can-
not be said to be quite free from fanciful ele-
ments, there is a real soberness in the mind of
its author; the difficulties connected with the
divine self-subsistence and universality, in relation
to the individuality of men, though they cannot
be said to be solved, are presented in a manner
to which little objection can be taken intel-
lectually, and against which no serious charge
of irreverence can be brought. Again, though
Plotinus was deeply penetrated with the sense of
the inferiority of material things to spiritual, he
did not allow this sense to blind him to the
beauty of the world even on its material aide, as
is powerfully shewn in his criticism of the
Gnostic theories {Ennead. ii. 9).
It must be said, however, that Plotinus wss
by no means so strong on the practical side of
his philosophy as he was on the theoretical side.
In the inculcation of practical conduct he is as
inferior to the Stoics as he is superior to them
in enthusiasm and in theoretical completeness.
His relation to them was very similar to the
Digitized by
Google
NEOPLATONISM
rtUtion of Origen to Augustine, and of the Greek
mind to the Roman mind generally. His practical
defects reach their climax when he comes to the
central point of his whole system, the " ecstasy,"
or onion of the soul with God. When once the
possibility of such a state is granted, the question,
how to attain it, becomes of transcendent import-
sice. But into this question Plotinus never
esters with any seriousness. He tells us, indeed,
that we are to retire into ourselves, into the
silence of our own hearts. But when this is said,
other considerations imperatively press for an
answer: How is such a retirement into ourselves
to be distinguished from indolence and vanity ?
How is it related to our conduct in external
matters ? Is it to be considered an intercourse
with God, and if so, is it the same as prayer ?
For prayer is not unrecognised in his system,
though his treatment of this subject too is of
the slightest and most theoretical kind. Is it a
daty to cultivate this " ecstasy " directly, or is
it a reward that comes to us in the fulfilment
of our duty? Practical questions of this sort
are ignored by Plotinus ; and yet the vivifying
power of his whole system depends on their
answer. And the fact is, that while far from
say conscious purpose of undervaluing morality,
he yet regards the whole material scene in which
we are cast as so low a region, as to think that
car conduct in that region needs scarcely any
detailed or careful scrutiny from a philosopher.
The guidance of feeling, when questions of con-
duct are put aside, necessarily assumes a bare and
abstract form ; and bare and abstract the ethical
teaching of Plotinus undeniably is. Here it was
that Neoplatonism, even at its very best, was
so vitally inferior to Christianity. It is in the
pound of daily practical life that the most sub-
lime spiritual excellence has its root ; this the
Neoplatonists never knew; of this Christianity as
a whole has never been ignorant.
Perhaps, indeed, the inferior minds among
the Neoplatonic philosophers had more discern-
ment of this truth than Plotinus himself, though
in the most celebrated of them, such as Porphyry
and Jamblichus, the discernment of it was not
merely partial, but distorted by an unworthy
bias. The practical morality of Neoplatonism,
after the death of Plotinus, tended more and
wore to centre itself in the polemical advocacy
of the pagan worship. Nor can there be any
mistake as to the reason why this was the case.
If it were possible to doubt that the nobler
elements of Neoplatonism were kindled by a
desire to emulate Christianity, it would still
not be possible to entertain a similar doubt with
respect to this, its worst side. The alliance of
paganism with the Neoplatonic philosophy cul-
minated, as is well known, in the time and in
the person of Julian. It is wholly out of the
question to suppose that the extraordinary
development of ceremonialism which Julian
introduced for the honour of Jupiter and Apollo
was occasioned by any sudden access of genuine
fervour for those deities, or in fact was the
result of anything but a resolution to outshine
Christianity in religious enthusiasm. Nor is
this merely a deduction from the general nature
of the case: it is supported by remarkable
specific points, both as exhibited by Julian him-
self and by other more philosophic minds. We
know that Julian ardently desired, not merely
NEOPLATONISM
21
philosophic insight, but supernatural power;
this led him to take for his ally and counsellor
that arrogant dealer in m igical arts, Maximus,
rather than advisers who professed nothing more
than the teaching of wisdom. (See Art. Maximus
of Ephesus.) Long before Julian, the attempt
to bring the supernatural into close connection
with the daily life of man appears in well-
known writings of Neoplatonist philosophers;
in the lives of Pythagoras by Porphyry and
Jamblichus respectively, to which should be
added the life of Apollonius of Tyana by Phi-
lostratus (for though Philostratus is rather
known as a Pythagorean than as a Neoplatonist
philosopher, the two schools were closely con-
nected. See Art. on Apollonius of Tyaha).
In all these biographies are found two elements,
never seen in Greek or Roman philosophy till
Christianity became a power that forced itself on
the attention of men : first, the setting up of
some individual philosopher, not merely as a
teacher however great, but as divinely inspired
and exercising command over men by super-
natural influence ; and secondly, the attribution
to such philosopher of miraculous powers. No
tenable account has ever been given of such bio-
graphies as those here referred to, except that
which regards them as composed with the pur-
pose (conscious or unconscious) of intimating,
that heathenism could equal Christianity iu
points in which Christians appealed to the
popular mind with a force which no mere ex-
hibition of reasoning powers could pretend to
equal. Nor did the tendency here spoken of ever
leave Neoplatonism ; we find it in the biography
of Jamblichus by Eunapius ; in the life of Proclus
by Marinus.
But though an unworthy rivalry was the
original incentive to such representations as those
just noticed, and also to the excessive ceremo-
nialism of Julian, it would be incorrect to sup-
pose that the Neoplatonic philosophy was putting
any severe or unnatural strain on itself in taking
into its system elements such as these. The
teaching of Plato himself was so rich in sympa-
thetic power, that it allied itself naturally to
cravings of the popular mind which colder rea-
soners despise, such as the desire for religious
association and for ceremonial worship. Thus
when Neoplatonism proceeded to press these
points on the notice of men, and to treat them
as an integral part of its own theory, it had
plenty of sanction in its inherited doctrines for
such a course, though the immediate impulse
came from an external quarter. The following
passage from Vacherot puts the natural affinities
of Neoplatonism for mystic ceremonial religion
very strikingly, though it must not be taken as
exhibiting the whole case.
" The Alexandrian philosophy soon allowed
itself to be drawn into extravagance and super-
stition. . . We of this age can scarcely com-
prehend how a philosophical school could lend
itself seriously to such a part. But our surprise
is due to our judgment of oriental philosophy
being framed on the lines of the modern spirit.
That philosophy bridged over the gulf which
separates the world of sense from the world of
intellectual truth by an innumerable multitude
of powers of every nature and rank, and sup-
posed an intercourse more or less intimate to
exist between man and these powers. Why then
Digitized by
Google
22
NEOPLATONISM
should it not have accepted, with the necessary
reserves, the belief in the gods ? Was it so dif-
ficult for it to see in the apparition of a God the
communication with such or such a power ? The
soul of man, in the teaching of the Alexandrians,
is distinct but not separate from the divinity ;
it touches the divinity on all sides of its nature.
It possesses the faculties which enable it to
communicate with the divine in every degree of
the intervening scale. By ecstasy, it unites
with the supreme God ; by pure thought it en-
ters into relations with the world of intellectual
truth ; by the soul and the imagination, it has
communion with deities, genii, heroes and all
the intermediate powers which transmit life and
light to the natural world. What then is there
surprising in the fact that the philosopher sacri-
fices, invokes or evokes supernatural powers at
his need, just as the priest does ? . . . . The
creed of the Alexandrians bases itself on the
identity of religious belief with philosophic doc-
trine. ... Its extravagances and superstitions
have their origin entirely in the philosophy
itself." (Translated from Vacherot, vol. ii.
pp. 147-9.)
True it is, as Vacherot here states, that the
Neoplatonic philosophy was invoked to aid, and
naturally did aid, the Neoplatonic theurgy, with
its splendid ritual and its vaunted miracles.
But it is going too far to say, as Vacherot does,
that the philosophy was the parent of the
theurgy and the ritual. The tokens are not
those of true parentage. The philosophy had
subtle affinities for the ritual ; but those affini-
ties would not have been brought into active
manifestation had not a grosser and more power-
ful motive come into play. And that motive
was, the desire to maintain the imperial supre-
macy of Rome on the spiritual as well as on
the material side, and the consequent jealousy
of Christianity, and attempts to rival the pecu-
liar power which Christianity exerted. It is
impossible of course not to treat this aspect of
Neoplatonism (which is remarkably absent from
Plotinus) as one much to be regretted.
It would, indeed, be unjust to judge of the whole
series of Neoplatonic philosophers after Plotinus
by these points of their practice. They have
this merit, that they preserved the good elements
of philosophy, as well as its lapses ; its free
spirit of inquiry, its tolerance, the sense of duty
and reverence for the past inspired by it. Yet,
if they preserved much of this, they added
nothing ; the whole substance of Neoplatonism is
contained in Plotinus, and in Plotinus alone.
The additions and expansions of Jamblichus, and
the much more elaborate ones of Proclus, con-
tain no new element; if they are not purely
arbitrary, they rest at all events on quite super-
ficial grounds. It may be suspected, as Zeller
suggests, that a religious motive, namely a
desire to introduce some stronger support for
polytheism than any which Plotinus had given,
was what induced Proclus to frame in his philo-
sophy the hypothesis of the independent unities,
which are subordinate to the supreme unity.
But if Neoplatonism had no fresh developments
(in the true sense of that word) after Plotinus,
it had an important history ; and it is necessary
briefly to sketch the leading elements of this,
and the characteristics of the chief members of
the sohool. Porphyry (about a.d. 233 to A.D.
NEOPLATONISM
305), the ablest pupil of Plotinus, was the first
in whom the bios of antagonism to Christianity
appeared, and the philosopher in whom of all
others it appeared most keenly. It is indeed in
this relation that Porphyry is chiefly known ;
and though we cannot tell what effect his attack
on Christianity had in the way of actually pro-
moting ^the cause of paganism, the manner in
which he is mentioned by the Christian fathers
proves that his treatise Against the Christians
possessed more than ordinary learning and
acuteness. The treatise itself, however, does
not survive, and what we know of it is mainly
derived from the references made by Jerome and
Eusebius. We may infer from what Augustine-
tells us (0e Civ. Dei, xix. 23. 2) that Porphyry
would not have been unwilling to set Christ on
a level with such a philosopher as his own hero,
Pythagoras; this is in the ordinary eclectic
manner which prevailed so largely at that epoch,
both in philosophy and religion. In respect of
his own philosophy, Porphyry is rather to be
considered as the populariser of Plotinus; not
that he was equal to his master in comprehen-
siveness or real soberness (as of course he fell far
short of him in originality); but he had the
advantage in clearness of style, and he knew
what ordinary men would understand. When
he expresses his own feelings of religion and
duty, as in the epistle to his wife Marcella, he
does it not without dignity and simplicity.
It is a descent from Porphyry to his pupil
Jamblichus; for in Jamblichus we first find
definitely that admixture of the crudities of the
pagan religion with philosophic research of which
so much mention has been made above. The
extraordinary reputation of Jamblichus in his
own and succeeding ages, is not justified by any
of his extant writings ; but where so much has
been lost, it would be nnfair to insist too much
on the weakness of that which has been pre-
served.
But it is in the emperor Julian (a.d. 331 to
A.D.-363) and his philosophic friends that Neo-
platonism goes down to its nadir. The, in many
respects, strong and admirable character of Ju-
lian cannot disguise from any one the fact that
he lent an enthusiastic aid to n religious system
of the most contemptible kind; and that his
philosophy shared in many respects the faults of
that religion.
When paganism was finally overthrown, and
incapable of developing on any large scale into
that system of theurgic, mystic, and magical
rites in which Julian delighted, there is a
certain revival of excellence among the philo-
sophers of the Neoplatonic school. This is most
pleasingly shewn in Hierocles, who lived in the
first part of the fifth century, and whose adher-
ence to the pagan religion is supposed, with some
reason, to have subjected him to persecution.
But, to judge from his extant writings, the
paganism of Hierocles had in it very little of
superstition or even of excessive ceremonial ; his
religious doctrines are of an extremely pure
character, and his morality is of that benevolent,
self-sacrificing, yet not ascetic type which we are
accustomed to think of as the natural product
of Christianity.
Of a different spirit was Proclus (slightly
later than Hierocles, a.d. 412 to a.d. 485), though
he too appears to have suffered for his adherence
Digitized by
Google
NEOPLATONISM
to paganism (less severely, however, than Hiero-
cles). Of all the Neoplatonic school Proclus was
the greatest and most persevering systematiser,
the writer most determined to let no element
drop which his predecessors had insisted on. If
those elements had been universally trustworthy,
such systematisation could still not have been
satisfactory without the most penetrating insight.
But when it is remembered that the Neoplatonic
system had before his time been subjected not
merely to arbitrary philosophical accretions, bat
also mixed and entangled with the follies of a
decaying religion, the task which Proclos set
himself may well be thought a hopeless one.
Nevertheless, modern critics have not spoken
unfavourably of Proclus ; though no one has
been found to second the bold opinion of Cousin,
that in Proclus all the rays of ancient philo-
sophy, from Orpheus to Zeno and Plotinus, are
concentrated and re-emitted. But that Proclus
was a laborious and conscientious student there
can be no doubt; as also that the asceticism
which he practised (though like the monastic
asceticism it does not meet the approval of the
present age) was the proof of a sincere and self-
denying spirit. He closes the line of important
Neoplatonic philosophers; of Simplicius and
Olympiodorus it will suffice to mention the
names. Nevertheless, a last ray of the philo-
sophy lingered in the celebrated and unfortunate
Boethius ; whose undeserved death, noble char-
acter, and touching treatise De Consolation*,
form a not uninteresting or unworthy close to
a philosophy of mixed though striking character.
Though almost all the names connected with
the Neoplatonic philosophy are heathen, and
though the philosophy itself was turned into
one of the great bulwarks of falling paganism,
the names of Boethius, and long before him, of
Proaeresins (the instructor of Eunapius) are pro-
bable exceptions; that of Synesius, the well-
known bishop of Cyrene, a certain exception.
The connexion of Ncoplatonism with Chris-
tianity may be summed up in the following way.
About the beginning of the third century, an-
cient philosophy was kindled into new and sudden
life in Alexandria, through influencesofwhich it is
reasonable to believe that Christianity was an im-
portant part ; and was thus led to strike backwards
into regions which had been long ago left behind,
the original Platonic channel, which of all an-
cient philosophies had most of that freshness
and enthusiasm, that feeling after a higher
world, which the heathen saw among Christians.
For some time, Christianity and Platonism went
side by side in peace. It might have been hoped
that with men like Clement and Origen on the
one side, and Ammonius and Plotinus on the
other, religion and philosophy might have been
reconciled and coalesced. But that did not
happen; on both sides a recession took place;
and philosophy became the bitter rival and op-
ponent, with more and more deepening anta-
gonism, of the rising religion. The crisis took
place in Julian's time ; it ended in the thorough
defeat of philosophy, which had attached itself
to paganism. After that time philosophy,
though not without writers worthy of esteem,
has no fresh or original spring ; and it at last
succumbs without a struggle, partly to arbi-
trary despotic suppression, partly to the grow-
ing darkness of the middle ages.
NEPOS
23
The principal recent authorities on Neopla-
tonism are Jules Simon and Vacherot, in their
respective histories of the Alexandrian school,
and Zeller, in his fifth volume of Die Philosophic
der Griechen. See also Bouillet's translation of
Plotinus into French (Paris, 1859). Richter's
Neuplatomsche Studien (Halle, 1867), and
Kirchner's Die Philosophic des Plotin (Halle,
1854). See, further, the articles on Ammonius
SaCCAS, PMTINU8, POBPHTRT, JaMBUCIIUS,
Hierocles, Proclus, and Eunapius in the
present dictionary. [J. R. M.]
NEOPTOLEMUS, a gentleman of rank
to whom Theodoret wrote a consolatory letter on
the death of his wife. (Theod. Ep. 18.) [E. V.]
NEOTEBIUS (1) (Neotherius), identified
as the praefect in a.d. 385 (Clinton, Fast. Rom.
i. 508-510 ; Cod. Theod. i. pp. cxx. sq.), who in
vain urged upon St. Ambrose the giving up of
the church of Portiana, in Milan, at the order of
the empress Justina for the Arians. (Ambrosius,
Ep. xx. ap. Pat. Lot. t. xvi. 995; Tillemont, x.
168 ; Ceillier, v. 384.) [J. G.]
NEOTEBIUS (2), count, addressed by
Meletius of Hopsuestia from his exile at Meletina,
a.d. 436 (Synod, adv. Tragoed. cap. 141, Balm.
Cone. 842). [J. G.]
NEPHALIUS, an abbat of a monastery
near Gaza, one of the heads of the moderate
Eutychian party. In 487 he went to Constan-
tinople and complained to the emperor Zeno of
the violent proceedings of Peter Mongus in
Egypt. He was sent to Alexandria in company
with the governor Arsenius to promote healing
measures, but with no result (Evag. H. E. iii.
22). Nephalius afterwards deserted the Euty-
chians and held a dispute with Severus, who was
then in his monastery. Nephalius and his party
triumphed and Severus was expelled. (Evag. iii.
33 ; Tillem. xvi. 378, 684.) [C. H.]
NEPOS (1), an Egyptian bishop in the latter
part of the first half of the 3rd century. He was
the leading champion of the Millenarians in that
country, and wrote a book called a " Refutation of
the Allegorists," in which he confuted those who
gave an allegorical interpretation to the passages
in the book of Revelation which seem to speak of a
reign of our Lord upon this earth for a thousand
years. Soon after the death of Nepos, the in-
fluence which his book had gained caused it to
be made the subject, first of a vied voce discussion,
afterwards of a formal treatise by Dioxrsius or
Alexandria (see that article). Dionysius, though
combating the views of Nepos, speaks of him
with the highest respect for his piety and his
knowledge of the Scriptures, and in particular
gratefully acknowledges the service he had ren-
dered the church by the composition of hymns,
in which many of the brethren took great delight
(Euseb. B. E. vii. 24). [Chiliasts.] [G. S.]
NEPOS (2), JULIUS, the last but one of
the Roman emperors of the West. He was the
nephew of Marcellinua the patrician, and appa-
rently inherited the whole or part of his uncle's
Dalmatian principality. The emperor Leo gave
him in marriage the niece of the empress
Verina (Jornandes, De Segn. Success.'), and con-
Digitized by
Google
24
NEPOTIANI
ferred on him the rank of emperor. A» Leo
died in January 474, this must hare been at
latest at the end of 473. He was first proclaimed
emperor at Ravenna by Domitianus, an officer
of Leo, and, after vanquishing his predecessor
Glycerins [Glycemus (8)], was proclaimed at
Rome, June 24, 474. His short reign did not
justify the praises and the hopes of Sidonius
(Epist. v. 16 and viii. 7 in Migne, Patr. Lot.
Iviii. 546, 598). Almost his only recorded act
is the cession of Auvergue and its brave defenders
to the Visigoths [Euric (1)]. The following
year, Orestes the patrician entered Ravenna,
at his approach on August 28 (Chronicon Cus-
pinianum) Nepos fled to Salona in Dalmatia,
where he retained his hereditary principality,
and perhaps some other fragments of the Western
Empire, with the title of emperor. The only
attempt he made to regain his throne seems to
have been to send an embassy to the emperor
Zeno, in 477 or 478, entreating his assistance.
Zeno gave him fair words, bat no substantial
help (Malchus, p. 236, ed. Dindorf)- In 480 he
was murdered, Hay 9, in his own villa near Salona
by Viator and Ovida (Marcellinus, Ckronkon, in
Patr. Zat. li. 932). According to one account
his predecessor was implicated in his death.
[GLYCERIOS (8).] [F. D.]
NEPOTIANI. [Nepos (1).]
NEPOTIANUS(l),FLAVIU8 POPILIUS
(Ducange, f'am. Byzant. 85), son of Eutropia,
who was sister of Constantine the Great. His
father was perhaps the Nepotian who was consul
in A.D. 301, and he himself was probably consul
in a.d. 336.
In the troubled year that followed the death
of Constans and the usurpation of Magnentius
(A.D. 350), he made a bold attempt to seize the
empire. On the 3rd June (Idatius, Fasti), he
assumed the purple near Rome, assembled a band
of desperadoes and gladiators, marched against
the city, defeated with great slaughter Anicetus,
the praetorian prefect, and made himself master
of Rome. He used his victory cruelly; the
houses, streets, and temples were filled with
blood and corpses, and the prefect himself was
put to death. His triumph, however, was a short
one ; Magnentius sent against him Marcellinus
the master of the offices, who defeated and
killed him on the 1st of July, and his head was
struck off and carried about the city on a pole.
(Zosimus,ii. 43 ; Victor de Cues. 42, and Epit. 42 ;
Eutropius, x. 11.) [F. D.]
NEPOTIANUS (S), bishop of Clermont in
Auvergne (Greg. Tur. Glor. Conf. cap. 37, Hitt.
Fr. i. 41); believed to have died Oct. 22, 38S.
(Boll. Acta SS. 22 Oct. ix. 613 ; Gall. Chr. ii.
228 ; Tillem. viii. 126, xiv. 129.) [C. H.]
NEPOTIANUS (8), a presbyter at Altinum,
under his uncle Heliodorus, the bishop of that
place. His death in 396 elicited an interesting
letter from Jerome to Heliodorus. It relates
his relinquishment of a military life in favour
of voluntary poverty and monachism, which he
intended to pursue in Egypt, Mesopotamia, or
the solitudes of the Dalmatian islands; his
ordination, from which at first his modesty
greatly shrank; and finally his intense and
NERO, CLAUDIUS CAESAE
unwearied devotion to his pastoral duties. One
of Jerome's letters (ep. 52, ed. Vail.), De Vita
Ctericorum et Monachorum, a.d. 394, is addressed
to Nepotianus. (Boll. Acta SS. 11 Mai. ii. 627 ;
Tillem. viii. 402, xi. 536, xii. 13, 29, 31, 150-
155, 200-202; Ceill. vii. 603, 605, 606.)
[Heuodorus (7).] [C. H.]
NEREUS, martyr with Achillcus in the
Tcign of Trajan. The priest of a church dedi-
cated to their memory at Rome subscribes a,
decree of Gregory the Great {Pat. Lot. Ixxvii.
1339 ; Mansi, x. 488). See more under Nebeus
in D. C. A. and Tillem. i. 189, 316, ii. 127.
[C. HJ
NERIANUS, nobleman, addressed in a false
decretal attributed to pope Anastasius. (Isidor.
Mercat. Decrtt. Coli. ap. Migne, Pat. Lat. t.
exxx. 693; Tillem. xii. 257 ; Ceillier, Aid. Sacr.
vi. 94, discussing its sources). [J. G.]
NERIENDA, one of the abbesses mentioned
in a spurious charter of Wihtred king of Kent,
c. 604 ; but for the reading " Aebbam et
Neriendam," another is "et Aebbam reverendam.**
(Haddan and Stubbs, iU. 246.) [C. H.]
NERO (1), CLAUDIUS CAESAR, emperor
(13th October, a.d. 54-9th June, a.d. 68). For the
purposes of the present work the interest of Nero's
life centres in his persecution of the Christians.
For the general history of his reign, see Meri-
vale, c. lii.-lv. During the early part of it,
Christianity was unmolested and seems to have
spread rapidly at Rome. No doubt it received
a great impetus from the preaching of St. Paul
during the two years that followed his arrival,
which probably occurred early in a.d. 61. For
a prisoner of his rank, he appears to have been
treated kindly and to have met with no hindrance
in his work. But before long a terrible storm
was to burst on the infant church.
On the night of the 16th of July, a.d. 64, a,
fire broke out among the wooden booths and
shops that were built against the Circus Maximus
in the valley between the Palatine and the Aven-
tine. That part of the city contained no great
houses or temples of solid masonry to resist the
flames, but consisted of a crowded mass of
humble dwellings and shops full of inflammable
contents. Thus the fire soon got such a hold,
that all attempts to check its progress were
vain. The lower parts of the city became a sea
of flame, which occasionally swept over parts of
the hills themselves. For six days the fire raged
till it reached the foot of the Esquilinc, where it
was stopped at last by pulling down a number
of houses, and thus leaving a vacant space in
front of it. Soon afterwards a second fire broke
out in the gardens of Tigellinus near the Pin-
cian, and raged for three days in the northern
parts of the city. Though the loss of life was
less than in the first fire, the destruction of
temples and public buildings. was more serious.
By the two fires, three of the fourteen regions
into which Rome was divided were utterly de-
stroyed, four escaped entirely, in the remaining
seven but few houses were left standing. Nero
was at Antium when the fire broke out, and did
not return to Rome till it had almost reached
the vast edifice which he had constructed to
Digitized by
Google
NERO, CLAUDIUS CAESAR
connect his palace on the Palatine with the
gardens of Maecenas on the Esquiline.
Though judicious measures were taken both
for the immediate relief of the houseless and
starring multitude, and for the restoration of
the city on a regular plan, and with materials
better adapted to resist future fires, and though
various ceremonies were performed to appease
the offended gods, the horrible suspicion that
Nero himself was the author of the fire gained
strength. This is asserted as a positive fact by
Suetonius (c. 38), Dion (lxii. 16), and Pliny the
Elder (ivii. 1), the last being a contemporary,
but Tacitus alludes to it only as a prevalent
rumour. Whether it was well founded or not,
and whether, supposing it to be true, the em-
peror's motive was to clear away the crooked,
narrow streets of the old town in order to
rebuild it on a new and regular plan, or whether
it was a mere freak of madness, need not be dis-
cussed here. At any rate Nero found it necessary
to discover some scapegoats to divert from him-
self the rage of the people. For this purpose he
selected the Christians.
The only author who lived near the time of the
persecution that gives an account of it is Tacitus.
As the passage is short and obscure, and has
been the subject of various interpretations, it
seems best first to give a translation of it, and
then to notice the various explanations that have
been proposed. After describing the origin of the
sect he proceeds as follows: — "First were ar-
rested those who confessed (correpti qui fateban-
tur), then on their information a vast multitude
was convicted, not so much on the charge of arson
as for their hatred of the human race. Their
deaths were made more cruel by the mockery
that accompanied them. Some were covered
with the skins of wild beasts and torn to pieces
by dogs ; others perished on the cross or in the
flame* ; and others again were burnt after sunset
as torches to light up the darkness. Nero him-
self granted his gardens (on the Vatican) for the
show, and gave an exhibition in the circus, and,
dressed ss a charioteer, mixed with the people or
drove his chariot himself. Thus, guilty and
deserving the severest punishment as they were,
yet they were pitied, as they seemed to be put to
death, not for the benefit of the state but to gra-
tify the cruelty of an individual " (Ahn. xv. 44).
This brief narrative has been the subject of the
most various interpretations. Gibbon (c. xvi.)
was the first to put forward as a conjecture that
the persons who really suffered were not Chris-
tians but Jews. Though the general body of
Jews might have been protected by Poppaea's
influence, it might easily have been suggested,
he argues, that the sect of Galilaeans which had
arisen among them was capable of the most
horrid crimes. He then goes on to assume a
confusion between two classes known as Galilaeans,
namely, the Christians and the Zealots who fol-
lowed Judas the Gaulonite. The latter sect
being extinguished in the ruins of Jerusalem,
Tacitus transferred their guilt and sufferings to
the Christians.
Merivale, c. liv., without going so far, suggests
that the turbulent Jews, who were notorious for
their appeals to the name of Christ as an ex-
pected prince, were the first objects of suspicion ;
when some w ere arrested and questioned, not so
much as to the burning as to their political
NERO, CLAUDIUS CAESAR 25
creed, they sought to implicate the Christians in
the same charge ; and that the true Christians,
thus associated in the charge of Christ-worship,
avowed the fact in their own sense, a sense
which their judges did not care to discriminate ;
and that finally the historian, finding that the
name of Christ was the common shibboleth of
the victims, imagined that the persecution was
directed against the Christians only.
Lightfoot on the other hand (Philippians 24-27)
considers that the Christians were at this time
sufficiently numerous and conspicuous to attract
the fury of the populace. He further adduces
the evidence of the Apocalypse, and inquires
how the language applied to Babylon, by which
Rome is meant, can be explained if the Neronian
persecution be a figment of later date.
The German critics are no less divided, and
here we may notice one of the ambiguities pre-
sented by the passage in Tacitus. What is the
meaning of " fatebantur "? Is it "first were
arrested those who confessad they were Chris-
tians, who openly confessed Christianity," or
" first were arrested those who confessed they
were guilty of the burning ; " and there is a
minor doubt as to the right translation of "cor-
repti." Merivale translates it " arrested," but it
may also bear the Tacitean sense of " accused."
The second explanation is adopted by Schiller
(Geschichte des R6m. Kaiserreichsunter A r ero, 435).
He argues that " fateri " in Tacitus is al ways used
of the confession of a crime. According to his
view, as many of the shops near the circus
where the fire originally broke out were occupied
by Jews, suspicion would fall upon them, which
would be strengthened by the fact that the
Transtiberine, the Ghetto of that time, was one
of the few quarters that bad escaped the fire.
At that time Jews and Christians lived in the
same part of the town and in the same manner.
Some Orientals were probably arrested on sus-
picion and put to the question ; by torture and
promises of pardon an admission of their guilt
was extorted, with the names of their accom-
plices; while some of the fanatical Jews may
voluntarily have made confession in the hopes of
thereby extinguishing Christianity. Possibly
too, some faithless Christians may have made a
similar confession to regain the good opinion of
the Romans. He treats the proceedings as being
purely a measure of police, pointing out that
Suetonius (c. 16) refers to the persecution
merely incidentally among a number of police
regulations, and argues that if religion had been
the motive Nero would have referred the matter
to the senate.
Nipperdey on the other hand, the latest editor
of Tacitus, with Weisziicker and Holtzmann
(Hist. Zeitschrift, xxxii. 13), adopts the first
interpretation of " fatebantur." Thus Weisziicker
(JahrbScher fur Deutsche Tkeotogk, xxi. 269, &c.)
considers that Nero and his advisers having de-
cided to select the Christians as the victims
of the popular indignation, those were first
seized who were conspicuous members of the
sect, some of whom, no doubt, were already
known to the police. They were then charged
as incendiaries, and from them the names of
others were ascertained, and these were then
treated in the same way. Thus a vast number
were arrested, so many that they could not
all have been guilty of arson. We are here
Digitized by
Google
26 NERO, CLAUDIUS OAESAB
parenthetically cautioned against supposing that
any real confession of the crime was made
either under torture or through Jewish hatred
of the Christians. The charge of arson thus
breaking down, that of "odium humani generis"
was brought forward, and it was on this they
were convicted. On what grounds could such
a charge be based ; on their practice or their
doctrine ? As to the former, the mind of the
historian may indeed have been coloured by
the calumnies of a later date, the 0ve<rrcta
teivva, and the like, but it is not unlikely that
such dark rumours were already current, and
inflamed the passions of the mob. Still the expres-
sion, " odium humani generis," is too vague, had
the trial been decided for such reasons, while
a superficial examination of their doctrines
would supply ample grounds for the conviction
which had been previously determined. One of
the beliefs most cherished and insisted upon by
the early Christian was that the end of the
world was close at hand when all things should
perish in the flames. Such a [doctrine was suffi-
cient justification of "odium humani generis," and
it was consistent that those who believed in the
approaching destruction of the world by fire
should anticipate it by burning the chief city of
the world. Thus though arson was the crime
for which they were put on their trial, it was
not that for which they were convicted. Though
the original charge had broken down, yet
enough had transpired on the trial to shew that
they deserved to be punished, and accordingly
they were found guilty. A regular trial was
necessary for Nero's purpose, and the more
formal it was, the better it would clear his
character. Thus though the Christianity of the
victims was not directly the cause of their
sufferings, yet indirectly it was in two ways.
The fact that their religion was hated and evil
spoken of was, in the first place, the cause that
they were selected by Nero and his advisers as
scapegoats ; and in the next, the original charge
having broken down, the cause of their condem-
nation was not indeed the circumstance that
they belonged to a particular religion, but the
character with which they were invested in the
•yes of the public by the mere fact of their
belonging to it.
In such a conflict of authorities it seems im-
possible to arrive at any positive conclusion, but
it may be proper to indicate as shortly as pos-
sible the view that seems most probable.
Nero, in search of some victims to divert the
popular indignation from himself, selected the
Christians. Why he did so must remain un-
certain. The Jews, who at first sight would
seem more likely to be chosen, as being more
conspicuous and probably more unpopular, were
in the first place protected by their influence at
court [PoppabaJ, and in the next they were
strong enough to make even Nero think twice
about attacking them. A Jewish persecution in
Rome might excite a dangerous revolt in Judaea.
A variety of causes on the other hand might
point out the Christians as convenient objects
for the emperor's purpose. While they were
conspicuous and numerous enough to furnish a
plentiful supply of victims, they were too few
and weak to be formidable. Possibly the Jewish
influence at court which has been alluded to
may have thrown its weight into the scale. The
NEBO, CLAUDIUS CAESAR
predictions current among the Christians of tha
approaching destruction of the world may have
lent a colour to the accusation, and some of them
may have incautiously expressed their satisfac-
tion at the destruction of so many heathen
temples, which must have appeared to them aa
an anticipation of the approaching catastrophe.
The victims thus being selected, WeizsScker's
account of the subsequent proceedings against
them seems on the whole to be fairly probable.
From the allusions of St. Clement (Epistle to
the Corinthians, c. 6), a little more information
can be obtained. Like Tacitus, he speaks of the
vast multitude, and mentions that women under-
went terrible and unholy tortures. From the MS.
reading of the passage (Sick {ijAor Sia>x0«<rat
yvvaiKes AaWuSej (col Alpicai, aMcr/Mrra 6W&
ical h>6am xafloucrai), it has been supposed that
they were tortured to death on the stage or in
the circus, being compelled to represent various
mythological stories ending in the death of the
performer. Such scenes were not uncommon on
the Roman stage, e.g. a Hercules was represented
burning to death in the fatal Nessus shirt (Tert.
Apol. 15), or an Orpheus being torn to pieces by
a bear (Hart. Sped, xxi.), and the account
agrees well with the expression of Tacitus, per-
euritibus addita ludibria. The famous group at
Naples generally known as the Karnese Bull,
shews how the myth of Dirce might be adapted
for such a purpose ; it represents her being tied
by Amphion and Zethus to the horns of a wild
bull. On the other hand no plausible conjecture
has been made as to how the story of the Danaids
could be scenically represented so as to serve as
a means of torture, and if St. Clement's meaning
was that women in the characters of Danaids
and Dirces suffered tortures, the form of expres-
sion he has chosen seems very strange and
unnatural. For these reasons Bishop Wordsworth
has conjectured yvyaTxts, vtdviSes, toiS(o"«u.
This reading is approved by the bishop of
Durham, by Bunsen, and by Lipsius (Light foot,
51 and 409). The meaning would then be wives,
tender maidens, even slave-girls. M. Renan
(L'Antechrist, 167-181) expands these two words
into fourteen pages.
Was the persecution confined to Rome, or did
it extend to the rest of the empire? There is
little evidence in favour of the latter conclusion.
The acts of the saints who are mentioned by
Tillemont (J/ifro. Ecct. ii. 73-89) are all more
or less fabulous, and assuming them to be
authentic there seems to be little or no ground
for placing them in the reign of Nero. Renan
(L'Antechrist, 183) argues that the persecution
must have extended to Asia Minor, from the
allusions in the Apocalypse, especially in the
epistles to the seven churches. But to support
this inference, first the theory that the
Apocalypse was written in the reign of Galba
must he adopted, and, even if this were
established, the allusions in question may be
explained without assuming that a regular
persecution was commanded. The accounts in
the Acts of the missionary journeys of St. Paul
shew how easily an outbreak of popular fury
might be excited by Jews or heathens, who,
either on religious or private grounds, were
hostile to the new doctrine, and how easily in
such an outbreak a conspicuous Christian might
be murdered without any edict against
Digitized by
Google
NEBO, CLAUDIUS CAESAE
Christianity being issued by the state, or indeed
without the public authorities interfering at
all, and also it is not unreasonable to suppose
that, when Nero set the example of persecution,
many of the provincial magistrates would take
a harsher view in the case of any Christian
that might be brought before them than they
had previously done. As for inscriptions, that
given by Cyriac of Ancona as found in some
unknown place in Spain has long been con-
sidered a forgery (Corpus Inscript. ii. 25*).
An attempt has been made to find an allusion
to the Neronian persecution in a graffito
discovered at Pompeii in 1862, an account of
which is given by M. Aulie (Persecutions de
rSglise, 415-421). But in the first place the
only word in the inscription which is legible
with certainty is Christianas, and in the next
place it apparently must have been traced
shortly before the destruction of the city in
A.D. 79, that is ten years at least after the end
of Nero's reign.
There finally remain the late testimonies of
Orosius, vii. 7, and Sulpicius Severns, ii. 29.
Bat they wrote many centuries after these
events and at a time when the idea of a general
proscription of Christianity was familiar.
Against their evidence is to be set the silence of
contemporary history, and especially the fact
that Tacitus in his narrative seems to consider
that the only places where Christians were then
found were Judaea and Rome.
A few words remain to be said on the question
of the connection between Nero and Antichrist,
which has been lately brought into prominence
by the interesting work of M. Kenan. The
significance of the Neronian persecution lies in
the fact that it was the first. Hitherto the
attitude of the state officials to Christianity had
an the whole been favourable; at the worst
they treated it with contemptuous indifference.
All this was now suddenly changed. The head
of the state has made a ferocious attack on the
infant church. Henceforth the two powers are
to be in antagonism more or less violent till the
struggle of 250 years is dosed by the conver-
sion of Constantine. Whatever be the date of
the Apocalypse, it can hardly be donbted that the
Neronian persecution with all its horrors was
vividly present to the mind of the author.
To have perished obscurely by his own hand
seemed both to Pagans and Christians too
common-place an end for a monster who for
fourteen years had filled such a place in the
eyes and the minds of men. Snch a career
seemed to demand a more dramatic, a more
striking termination. At the same time few
had witnessed his death, so that the notion
easily arose that he was still alive, had taken
refuge with the Partbians, and would reappear
again. Tacitus mentions two instances (Hist.
i. 2, ii. 8-9) of the appearance of false Neros,
and Suetonius (c 56) alludes to another. In
the days of his prosperity diviners had predicted
his fall, and had added that he would gain a
new dominion in the East and Jerusalem and
would at last regain the empire (Suetonius, c. 40).
According to the theory of M. Reuss (Histoire
de la Theoiogie ChrHienne, i. 429-452), adopted
by Kenan, the Apocalypse was written daring
the reign of Galba, that is at the end of A.D.
68 or the beginning of A.D. 69, when men's
NEKVA
27
minds were agitated, especially in Asia Minor,
by the appearance of a false Nero in the island
of Cythnus (Tac Hist. ii. 8). M. Reuss
interprets the first six heads of the first beast
as the emperors Augustas, Tiberius, Caius,
Claudius, Nero, and Galba, of whom the first
five were dead, while the sixth, Galba, was
then on the throne. As the latter was then
seventy-three his reign must soon terminate;
then a seventh was to follow and reign for a
short time, and then one of the preceding em-
perors who was supposed to be dead was to
reappear as Antichrist. The first four em-
perors had not been hostile to the Christians,
and none of them, except Caius, had perished by
a violent death. Nero therefore is the only one
that answers the description. Finally M. Reuss
interprets the number of the beast as the
numerical value of the letters composing the
words Vldpuv Kmaap when written in Hebrew,
and explains the existence of the ancient
various reading 616 by supposing it was due
to a Latin reader who had found the solution,
but pronounced the name Nero and not Neron,
the omission of the final n making the difference
of 50.
Whether this theory be well founded or not,
it is certain that the opinion that Nero would
return again as Antichrist continued for
centuries. Commodianus, who probably wrote
about A.D. 250, alludes to it (xli. in Migne,
Patr. Lot. v. 231), and even in the fifth century
St. Augustine (de Civ. Dei, xx. 19, in Patr. Lot.
xli. 686) mentions that some then believed he
would rise again and reappear as Antichrist,
and that others thought he had never died, but
would appear again at the appointed time, and
recover his kingdom. Another view was that
Nero would reappear again, but would be
distinct from Antichrist and would be his pre-
cursor. (Lact. Jtortes 2, Sulp. Sev. Dial. ii. 14
in Patr. Lot. vii. 197, xx. 211.) [F. D.]
NERO (2), '■ magister and ex-consul, ad-
dressed by Nilus (lib. ii. ep. 319 in Pat. Or.
lxxix.), who predicts that his wickedness wilt
not go unpunished. (Tillem. xiv. 198.)
[C.H.]
NEBSAN, a Persian nobleman who aposta-
tised from Christianity in the reign of Sapor,
and perished miserably (Boll. Acta SS. 9 Apr.
i. 825, § 3 ; Tillem. vii. 95, 96). [C. H.]
NERSAPUS, bishop of Daron in Armenia,
and the great supporter of the Julianist section
of the Monophysite party in that country. (Le
Quien, i. 1424.) * [G. T. S.]
NERSAS, bishop and martyr in Persia.
Vid. D. C. A.
NERSES. [Norseses.]
NERVA, Roman emperor, A.D. 96-98. M.
Cocceius Nerva was the third in succession of a
family conspicuous for legal and administrative
power in the first century of the empire. His
grandfather, eminent as a jurist, had been consul
under Tiberius (Tac. Ann. ir. 58, vi. 26) in
a.d. 22, was the emperor's chosen companion,
and starved himself to death in A.D. 33. His
father was consulted as an advocate at the age
of seventeen, and is mentioned by Tacitus as a
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
28
NESTABUS
praetor designates. The future emperor was
born a.d. 32 at Narnia in Umbria, but the family
is said to hare been originally from Crete (Aurel.
Vict. Epit. xii.). In conformity with the tradi-
tions of the family he acquired a civil rather
than a military reputation, and was consul with
Vespasian a.d. 71, and with Domitian in a.d. 90.
On the assassination of Domitian by Stephanus,
the freedman and agent of Domitilla, he was
elected as emperor by the soldiers, the people
and the senate, and his reign was distinguished
by a reversal of the policy of his predecessor.
The connexion of Stephanus with Domitilla, if
we accept the tradition that she and Flavios
Clemens were Christians [Domitian] may indi-
cate that the movement that placed Nerva on
the throne of the empire was in part, at least,
designed to further a more tolerant system of
government than that which had prevailed under
Domitian. Such, at any rate, was its effect. St.
John was recalled from his exile in Patmos
<Eu»eb. H. E. iii. 20). The crowd of delatores,
who, under the heads of treason, atheism and
Judaism, had preferred accusations which, in
the nature of the case, fell most heavily on the
Christians, were banished, and those who had
been sent to prison or exile on these charges
were recalled and set at liberty. Other measures
of the, emperor, though not distinctly Christian,
tended in the same direction. Provision was
made for the poor by the purchase aud cultiva-
tion of lands. Institutions, afterwards supported
and enlarged by Trajan, were founded for the
education of orphans and destitute children in
the cities of Italy. The prohibition of the grow-
ing practice of castration indicated a higher
morality (Dion Cass, lriii. 2). The conspiracy of
Calpurnius Crassus, a man of senatorial rank,
and the demands of the Praetorian Guard, headed
by their prefect, Aelianus Casperius, for the
punishment of the murderers of Domitian, a de-
mand to which the emperor reluctantly yielded
by the execution of Petronius Secundus and
Parthianus (Plin. Panegyr. c. 6; Aurel. Vict.
Epit. 12 ; Dion Cass. Iviii. 3), made him feel the
necessity of associating a younger man with
him in the cares of government, and his choice
fell on H. Ulpius Tbajancs, then in com-
mand of the legions on the Rhine. In con-
nexion with a victory obtained in Pannonia,
Nerva took the title of Germanicus, conferred
the same distinction on Trajan, together with the
title of Caesar and the Tribunicia potestas, and
the two were elected as consuls in a.d. 98. In
the course of the same year he died after a short
illness, was carried to the sepulchre of Augustus
on the shoulders of the senators, and his memory
honoured by the customary apotheosis which
added the title otttvus to bis name. The reputa-
tion which he left behind him is best summed up
iu the words of Tacitus, who speaks of his reign as
having opened the " beatissimum saeculum," which
included the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian and the
Antonines, and of the emperor himself as having
united "res olim dissociabiles, principatum ac
iibertatem " ( Vit. Agric. c. 3). [E. H. P.]
NESTABUS, martyr. [Eusebius (113).]
NESTEROS. [Nistherous.]
NESTOR. See also under Nestobios.
NESTORIANISM
NESTOR (1) (N6rr»p) a confessor at Gaza,
who died of wounds inflicted by the populace in
the reign of Julian. (Soz. v. 9.) [C. H.]
NESTOR (2), a gladiator, martyred under
Maximian, according to Simeon Metaphrastes
(Surius, De Prdb. SS. Hist. 8 Oct., pp. 107, 108,
num. vii.-ii.; Boll. Acta SS. 8 Oct. iv. 60).
Tillemont (v. 638) comments on the narrative,
which he calls fabulous and scandalous.
[C. H.]
NESTOR (3), bishop of Tarsus, one of those
banished from their sees in 489 by the emperor
Zeno, as related by Theophanes (Chronog. sub.
A.c. 482). The text, which is here confused,
gives his see incorrectly, but the Latin of
Anastasius Bibliothecarius amends it {Pat. Gr.
cviii. 325, 1239). [C. H.]
NESTOR (4), Feb. 14, bishop of Trimithus
in Cyprus, placed by Le Quien (U. 1070) before
680 (cf. Boll. Acta SS. 7 Mart. i. 643). [C. H.]
NESTORIANISM. (The adherents of this
party were named Simoniani by an edict of the
emperor Theodosius. They reject the name
Nestoriana, and call themselves Chaldaeans.)
Nestorianism was the heresy which marked the
earlier portion of the 5th century, as Arianism
marked the earlier portion of the 4th century.
It marked, too, one of the great stages on the
road towards that complete Christological con-
ception to which the church has since clung.
We shall discuss the subject in the following
order : I. The sources of Nestorianism and its
relation to previous heresies. II. Its rise and
progress to the council of Ephesus. III. Its
subsequent history within the empire till the
suppression of the school of Edessa by the em-
peror Zeno, a.d. 489. IV. Nestorianism in Persia.
l\ As to the sources of Nestorianism and rela-
tion 1 to previous heresies we may describe it as
a reaction against Apollinarianism. Nestorianism
was a product of the school of Antioch. The
school of Antioch was marked by one doctrinal
tendency, the school of Alexandria by an opposite
tendency. To quote the very clear words of
Neander (H. E. iii. 500, ed. Bonn), "In the
Alexandrian school, an intuitive mode of appre-
hension inclining to the mystical ; in the An-
tiochene, a logical reflective bent of the under-
standing predominated." The Alexandrian
school fixed its attention therefore almost en-
tirely on the Divine side of Christ's person, a
tendency which found its final development in
the Monophysite heresy; to which even Cyril, with
all his dogmatic precision, at times approached
perilously near. The Antiochene school fixed its
attention chiefly, though not exclusively, on the
human side of Christ's person, insisting on its
completeness and therefore its separate per-
sonality, a tendency which found its final de-
velopment in Nestorianism. The full exposition
and proof of these statements will be found in
Neander, /. c. iii. 499, iv. 107-123. The An-
tiochene school holding fast to the completeness
of Christ's human nature was brought by its
dogmatic tendencies, as well as by local contact,
into sharp conflict with the Apollinarian view,
Apollinaris being a Syrian bishop. Now Apolli-
naris, in defining the unity of Christ's person,
made much use of the theological principle
Digitized by
Google
NESTORIANISM
called the interchange of attribute! (comrauni-
catio idiomatum ; ityrtfitBioTOffts r&v oVojuct-
ron>); and waa fond of such expressions as
" God died," " God was born," which were most
abhorrent to the great writers Diodorus of Tar-
sus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who shaped the
fortunes of the Antiochene school towards the
end of the 4th century, and the beginning of
the 5th. In Theodore's writings, indeed, can be
traced all the principles of Nestorianism, of
which he was the real founder. Thus, in his
treatise on the Incarnation in Mai's Nova Coll.
Vett. Scriptt. t. vi. p. 305, we see Nestorianism
appearing full blown as a reaction against
Apollinarianism. There he teaches that both
natures in Christ are complete, and as such are
each of them personal, personality being an
essential part of a complete nature. He there-
fore rejects the use of the term union (Spawn),
preferring conjunction (ervn&pcia), in reference
to the two natures in Christ. He allows the
application of the term 0«otokot to the Blessed
Virgin only, in a figure preferring the term
drfpnr o riKot ; and maintains that God dwelt
not in the man Jesus either by nature or by
energy, which cannot be limited or conditioned
{-rtpiypwpifi€yot), but solely by the Divine Com-
placency (t&SoKia) in his eminent virtue just as
he dwells in the saints, only in a higher degree,
inasmuch as the virtue of the man Christ sur-
passed all human virtue. On this point of the
connexion between Theodore and Nestorianism
the reader may consult Neander, /. c, Dorner's
Doctrine of Chrai't Person, Div. ii. t. i. p. 25
pass., and Leontius of Byzantium in his treatise
against Nestorius, where this view is expounded
at length. (Migne, Pat. Grace, t. lxxxvi. 1386,
cf. de Sectis, 1222.)
II. History of heresy to the council of
Ephesus. Theodore of Mopsuestia waa the real
founder of Nestorianism, but, as has often happened,
the heresy has gained its name from a man who
merely popularised principles which a deeper
and more retired thinker had previously elabo-
rated. The following was the occasion of its rise.
Sisinnius, patriarch of Constantinople, died Dec.
24th, 427. The school of Antioch was then in
high repute at Constantinople, owing to the
saintly memory of St. Chrysostom. From it
therefore Nestorius was chosen as his successor.
[Nestorids.] Nestorius was a disciple of Theo-
dore, a monk of the monastery of Euprepius,
near Antioch, and celebrated for his eloquence
and austerity. He was consecrated bishop of
Constantinople the 10th of April, 428 ; when he
at once set himself to crush ont by force various
forms of heresy which had hitherto found tolera-
tion in the imperial city and neighbourhood ; a
course of conduct in which he must have advanced
to great lengths, as even the public opinion of the
orthodox turned against him and branded him
as an incendiary (Soc H. E. vii. 29). He soon,
however, fell himself under suspicion. He had
brought with him from Antioch a presbyter,
Anastasius, as his syncellus or private chaplain.
This man was a thorough-going adherent of
Theodore's doctrines, and came to Constantinople
evidently determined to use his official position
to advance them in every way. [Anastasius.]
This Anastasius, preaching one day in presence
of Nestorius, said : " Let no one call Mary
Theotocos ; for Mary was but a woman, and it is
NESTORIANISM
29
impossible that God should be born of a woman."
These words created a great sensation, as the
title had become a popular one for the Blessed
Virgin, sanctioned as it had been by Athanasius
and many orthodox fathers, and even by Euse-
bius in the third book of his life of Constantine.
Nestorius, instead of condemning the preacher,
threw the shield of his episcopal authority over
him by delivering several discourses in mainte-
nance of the same view. These sermons are still
extant in the works of Marius Mercator, a
devout African layman, who, being just then in
Constantinople, took the greatest interest in this
controversy. A report of these discussions was
rapidly borne to Egypt, where it stirred up con-
siderable debate among the monks, whereupon
Cyril, at Easter a.d. 429, addressed to them an
elaborate exposition of the orthodox doctrine in
twenty-seven chapters (Mansi, Concil. iv. 587).
A copy of this epistle was soon carried to Con-
stantinople, and excited the wrath of Nestorius,
who handed it over to Photius, one of his clergy,
for refutation. This being reported to Cyril, he
wrote an epistle to Nestorius in July of the
same year, pointing out that he had taken up
no new position in special opposition to Nestorius
when writing to the monks, but had simply
reiterated views he had already enunciated in
his work on the Trinity, published during the
episcopate of Atticus, bishop of Constantinople.
He also called the attention of Nestorius to the
conclusions which some of the monks had already
deduced from his teaching, refusing to style Christ
God, and calling him merely the instrument of
the divinity. Nestorius replied to the expostu-
lation in a brief and scornful manner, whereupon
a very embittered controversy began, wherein each
party charged the other with the most extreme
consequences he could deduce from his adver-
sary's premises. Cyril charged Nestorius with
denying the real divinity of Christ, like Paul of
Samosata, while Nestorius retorted by charging
his opponent with attributing the temporal acci-
dents of birth, suffering and death to the Divine
Nature like the pagans. Each combatant strove
to secure the pope for his own side. They did
not indeed formally appeal to him, as Roman
writers like Lupus (Opp. t. vii.) maintain. They
simply strove as independent patriarchs to gain
bis powerful alliance. Nestorius took the
initiative in this proceeding early in the year
430. He made an excuse of the presence of
Julian, a Pelagian bishop and his associates
from the West to request full information from
pope Celestine about their case. This led him
to notice his own perplexities. Views, as he
puts it, akin to Arianism and Apollinarianism
were popular at Constantinople, so much so that
some say "that God the Word had taken his
origin from the Virgin, the mother of Christ,
and that Christ's flesh after the resurrection had
been changed into the nature of the divi-
nity." The pope not having replied at once
to this letter, Nestorius addressed another t»
him on the same topic Whereupon Celestine
sent an epistle (Mansi, iv. 1026), telling Nes-
torius that the delay was unavoidable, as his
letter and documents had to be translated into
Latin, a fact which clearly shews the decline of
Greek learning in Rome one hundred years after
the change of empire to Constantinople. Cyril
meanwhile had been informed by his emissaries-
Digitized by
Google
30
NESTOBIANISM
at Constantinople of the correspondence between
Nestorius and the pope. The interval of delay
afforded him time to communicate with Celes-
tine, who was a very poor theologian. The
pope completely adopted Cyril's views, and
plainly told Nestorius that his tenets were sim-
ple blasphemy. Events now proceeded apace.
The literary activity of Cyril was immense, as
the collected edition of his works in Migne's
Patr. Graec., the documents collected in Mansi,
(t. iv.) and the works of Marius Mercator abun-
dantly prove. Cyril addressed lengthened
treatises to the emperor Theodosius, who was
however completely under the inBuence of Nes-
torius, to the empresses Pulcheria and Eudoila,
to the bishops of the East, and to his sympa-
thisers and adherents among the clergy and
monks of Constantinople, whom Nestorius had
excommunicated. The pope held a council at
Rome in August, a.d. 430, which excommuni-
cated Nestorius, unless he repented within ten
days of the reception of their sentence. Cyril
assembled another at Alexandria, which ratified
this sentence, and forwarded it to Constantinople,
together with twelve anathemas, which he called
on Nestorius to accept. To these Nestorius re-
plied by a series of counter-anathemas. The
emperor and his advisers, seeing no prospect of
peace, consented at last in November, a.d. 430,
to snmmon a general council, the writs for which
were addressed to all metropolitan bishops, re-
quiring them to meet at Ephesus by the follow-
ing feast of Pentecost, attended by such a num-
ber of their holiest bishops that a < sufficient
supply might be left at home to discharge neces-
sary episcopal functions ; a limitation so vague
that Cyril and his friends easily evaded it, and
packed the council with their own adherents.
£ John (31) or Antioch.] There is no necessity
to repeat the story of the general council of
Ephesus, and the struggles of Nestorius on the
one hand and of Cyril on the other, as this has
been already told in Cyril's life (t. i. p. 767) cf.
EPHESD3,Councils of, in Dictionary of Chbisti an
Antiquities, Vol. I. It must suffice to say that
the bishops attendant on Cyril and on Memnon,
the local bishop of Ephesus, so completely out-
numbered their opponents that Nestorius did not
even appear at the council, but allowed judgment
to go against him by default. In connexion how-
ever with John, metropolitan of Antioch, he held
a council of his own adherents, some thirty or
forty in number, who in turn excommunicated
and deposed Cyril and Memnon. Nestorius seems
to have completely relied on the imperial protec-
tion. Cyril, on the other hand, though very
violent, seems to have realised more deeply the
great spiritual issues involved, and therefore
openly defied the imperial wishes. The atmos-
phere of Constantinople had too often an ener-
vating effect on the fibre of its prelates. They
became secularised, mere courtly sycophants,
more ready to rely upon imperial favour or
humour imperial wishes, than to depend upon
spiritual forces and arguments. Cyril had
much more of the sturdy spirit of Western
independence. He at least had not been nur-
tured in and weakened by the atmosphere of
a court. An epistle of count Irenaeus, an
imperial official entrusted with the maintenance
of order, is very instructive on this point. It
is found in Mansi, iv. 1390. It is addressed
NESTORIANISM
to the emperor, and dwells on the contempt
for imperial authority and wishes shewn by
Cyril. Letters addressed by the Nestoriaa
party to the magistrates and to the pro-
vost or head of local police of Ephesus prove
that the populace were bitterly hostile to Nes-
torius (/. c. 1383-1386). They complain of in-
sults, houses attacked with stones, churches
closed against them, all because of their obedi-
ence to the imperial commands, and they petition
the crown for the assembling of a new council,
where each metropolitan should appear, attended
by two bishops alone. They assert that Cyril
had brought with him a crowd of " ignorant
rustics," whose violence overawed all others,
together with fifty Egyptian bishops; while
Memnon had summoned forty more from his juris-
diction, a statement which is fully borne out by
the admissions of Cyril and his friends as found
in Coptic MSS. published by Zoega in Cat. Cod.
Copt. MSS. [cf. Senuti]. While the bishops spent
the summer of 431 in bitter wranglings and dis-
putes, venting themselves at times in personal
encounters, Cyril and his friends called to their
aid powerful allies in the monks of Constantinople,
headed by the archimandrite Dalmatius, who for
forty-eight years had never left the cell in which
he had immured himself. [Dalmatics (4).]
This man headed a procession of monks to the
imperial palace, and terrorised the weak emperor
into compliance with their wishes. But Cyril
depended not alone upon the influence of monks,
or the power of his arguments and treatises.
He lavished bribes right and left, in order to gain
powerful court officials to his side. His course
of proceedings in such cases is disclosed to us by
a letter of his archdeacon and syncellus Epi-
phanius, preserved for us in the Synodicon, c 203
(Theodoret, Opp. t. v. Ep. 173). This letter was
addressed to Maximianus, the patriarch of Con-
stantinople, appointed, instead of Nestorius, in
October 431. [Maximianus.] It is an interest-
ing specimen of the way theological and political
considerations were intermingled at Constanti-
nople. Epiphanius tells the patriarch that
Cyril had written to the empress Pulcheria,
and to her influential chamberlains, and bribes,
or, as he more elegantly puts it, presents
(fiXoylai) had been sent to such as were worthy
of them. An attempt had been made to gain over
one of the chief chamberlains, Chrysoretes, who
was hostile by sending him magnificent presents
" ut tandem desisteret ab oppugnatione eccle-
siae." The patriarch was requested to urge
Pulcheria to use her influence with the palace
officials. The patriarch was to give these offi-
cials whatever their avarice demanded, although
they had already received presents enough.
Various court ladies were to be induced to co-
operate in effecting a separation between John
of Antioch and Nestorius. The abbat Dalmatius
must protest earnestly before the emperor, so as
to alarm his conscience. The abbat Entyches
even, whose name afterwards became so famous,
was called upon to act with vigour as one of the
tools of Cyril's party. Appended to the letter was
a list of the persons to whom bribes had been
sent from Alexandria, that the patriarch Maxi-
mianus might see how much the Alexandrian
church had interested itself in his cause, because
of course he could only retain his office, if the
deposition of Nestorius remained valid. The
Digitized by
Google
NESTOBIANISM
clergy and church of Alexandria even mourned
over the poverty brought upon them by the
excessive expenditure incurred. The patriarch
was also requested to procure the appointment
of Laosus as chief chamberlain, that so the power
of Chrysoretes might be destroyed and the ortho-
dox faith confirmed. (Cf. Hefele's Councils, t.
lii. pp. 112, 134, Clark's ed. for a very weak
defence of Cyril's conduct in this matter.)
[Chrysoretes. Lausus.] The upshot of all
the imperial vacillations and episcopal intrigues
was that Nestorius was deprived in Sept. or
Oct. 431 of his patriarchal throne, and rele-
gated to the monastery of Euprepius, near An-
tioch, whence he had been summoned to the
episcopate, and Haximianus was substituted in his
place. It is unnecessary now to enter into all
the subsequent details, as they will be found
stated under the names of the various actors
in the controversy, Cyril, John of Antioch,
Ibas, Rabulas, Theodoret, &c. We will there-
fore only present a rapid summary of the
course of events between the councils of Ephesus
and Chalcedon. After the deposition of Nes-
torius, Cyril, like a skilful general, perceiving
that the forces of his opponents were too strong
for him when united, determined to effect a
division in their ranks. With this end in view
he endeavoured to win over John, whose metro-
politan position at Antioch marked him out as
the natural leader of the Syrian opposition. An
opportunity soon offered. The emperor was
weary of controversy, and determined to effect
an ecclesiastical peace. He therefore put pres-
sure upon the Syrians who opened negotiations
with Cyril through Paul of Emesa. Paul had
belonged to the party of Nestorius at the coun-
cil of Ephesus, where his address and knowledge
of affairs had made him a natural leader. He
now lent himself to the imperial wishes, and
towards the latter part of 432 visited Cyril at
Alexandria, and explained the views of the
Orientals as set forth in a symbolic document,
which applied the term Btorixos to the Blessed
Virgin in the sense that two natures were
united in Christ, while each remained pure and
unmixed in its individuality. To this Cyril
consented, while, on the other hand, John and
his adherents agreed to acquiesce in the con-
demnation of Nestorius, and recognise the
ordination of his successor as valid. From this
time John completely abandoned the cause of
Nestorius. He even demanded that more rigor-
ous action should be taken against him. His
presence just at the gates of Antioch was felt
by John as a standing reproach against his own
inconsistency. In 435, therefore, the joint in-
fluence of Cyril and John obtained the adoption
of stronger measures against Nestorius and his
followers. His disciples were to be called
Simonians ; his books were to be burnt ; the
republication or preservation of them was made
a penal offence ; the bishops who adhered to his
views were to be deposed, while the poor man
himself was exiled first of all to Petra in Arabia,
• destination afterwards changed to the great
oasis of Egypt. The treaty between Cyril and
John was met, however, with the sternest opposi-
tion. Theodoret and Andrew of Samosata were
satisfied with Cyril's explanation, but could not
agree to the deposition of Nestorius ; while, as for
the zealots of the Syrian party, men like Alex-
NESTORIANISM
31
ander of Hierapolis and Meletius of Hopsuestia,
they threw all their energies into organising an
active opposition. Cyril and John, however,
using the forces of imperial law, by degrees
crushed all opposition, and drove their opponents
across the border into Persia, where the Nesto-
rian party organised itself afresh. Within the
empire the controversy was silenced only for a
little time. The opposing doctrinal tendencies
shewed themselves in the controversies which
burst forth anew after Cyril's death in a.d. 444
between Theodoret and Dioscorus, the new
patriarch of Alexandria, which led up to the
synod of Chalcedon, where by the force of reac-
tion Theodoret's orthodoxy was vindicated, and
Syrian theology became triumphant. [DIOSCORUS
(1).] Theodoret at the same time, like John of
Ephesus, seems to have become bitterly hostile to
Nestorius himself, as the cause of the whole
quarrel. He speaks very severely of him in his
fourth Book on Heresies ; so severely indeed
that grave doubts have been expressed concern-
ing the authorship of the passage. Cf. Theodoret,
t. v. Diss. 2, p. 251, Opp. ; ed. darner ; see
contra, Ceillier, x. 84. Unsuccessful men like
Nestorius are, however, apt to meet with but
slight sympathy from their more fortunate
brethren. The continued existence of Neste-
rianism as an organised system is due, however,
not to episcopal controversialists within the
empire, but to the great ecclesiastical school of
Edessa, and its Persian disciples beyond the
border. That school had been famous for ages,
and had served as a great Christian literary
centre for all the neighbouring lands, Armenia,
Syria, Chaldaea, and Persia. Its influence on
Armenia and its church has been noticed under
Mesrobes and Moses (5) of Khoren. At the
time of the council of Ephesus the bishop of
Edessa was one Rabulas. He was in entire
accord with Ibas, the head of the Persian school
in Edessa, and both were devoted disciples of
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Rabulas attended at
Ephesus, and took a most decided part with John
of Antioch and Nestorius in opposition to St.
Cyril. He soon, however, recognised the win-
ning side and joined it. Immediately upon his
return he held a synod, where he excommunicated
John and his party, anathematised Theodore, who
was dead, committed the writings of Theodoret
and Andrew of Samosata to the flames, and ex-
pelled the Persian school from Edessa. This
must have occurred towards the close of 431, or
early part of 432 a.d., as even John of Antioch,
who that same year abandoned the side of Nes-
torius, wrote a letter reprobating the proceedings
of Rabulas. It is from the celebrated letter of
Ibas to Maris, bishop of Hardascir in Persia, that
we learn the details of his bishop's conduct, and
at the same time get a glimpse of the views
taken by the more moderate party in the Syrian
church about the whole controversy, as Ibas
deals out blame to Nestorius as well as to Cyril.
[Ibas.] [Maris (4).] Ibas, however, took up
a bitterly hostile position towards Rabulas, and
by his translation into Persian of the works
of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore laid the
foundation of the Nestorian movement in that
country. In 435 he was elected bishop of Edessa
in succession to his opponent Rabulas, a choice
which mast of course have given a great impulse
to the progress of Nestorian views. The tyran-
Digitized by
Google
32
NESTORIANISM
nicnl expulsion of the Edessene school by Rabu-
las drove into Persia a scholar named Barsumas,
to whom the foundation of Persian Nestorianism
was specially due. He obtained the bishopric of
Nisibis in 435, and continued to hold the see for
fifty-four years, till his death in 489. He there
established a flourishing school, which was
largely increased and strengthened by the final
dissolution of the Edessene school by the em-
peror Zeno in a.d. 489, on account of its incor-
rigible Nestorianism. The Nestorians, indeed,
devoted themselves in those early times to educa-
tion, and established other flourishing schools at
Seleucia and many other places, as fully described
by Asseman. iv. cap. xr. sec. ii. p. 924 ; cf. sec
iv. p. 937, where the very liberal course of study
pursued therein is set forth. By his age
and learning Barsumas obtained immense in-
fluence even over the kings of Persia. He
cleverly used their political jealousies to advance
his own party. He represented that the Catho-
lic party were the friends and spies of the
Roman power, while he and his friends were
persecuted by it, and therefore necessarily hostile.
The Nestorian sect rapidly consolidated itself in
Persia, by conforming more or less to the ideas
and prejudices of the Persians. The Zoroastrians
specially abhorred celibacy and the monks. In
fact they taught and practised incest in its
worst forms, permitting the marriage of the
nearest relations, as of a brother and sister, or of
n son and his mother. In 499 a synod was held
by the Nestorians under Babaeus, the metropoli-
tan of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, at which clerical
celibacy was abolished, and the clergy of all
ranks up to the bishops themselves permitted to
innrry. The Nestorian sect rapidly extended it-
self into all the lands south and east and north of
Persia. Cosmas Indicopleustes (cf. s. o. 1. 1, p.
693) is a sufficient witness to this fact in the 6th
century. His narrative, compiled about a.d. 547,
proves that within half a century the Nestorians
had organised churches in India and Ceylon,
whose bishops acknowledged the jurisdiction of
the archbishop of Seleucia. They had also diffused
the gospel among the Bactrians, Huns, Arme-
nians, Medea and Elamites. They gained a firm
hold, too, upon the Tartars and Chinese. A
monument describing their progress in China
was discovered at Siganfu by the Jesuits. It
described their first mission to China in A.D. 636,
and related its history till the current year, a.d.
781, or, as the monument calls it 1092, of the era
of the Greeks. This inscription has been the
subject of much controversy, rather however, as
Milman puts it, " from hatred to the Jesuits by
whom it was made known " than from any other
motive. The arguments on either side can be
seen in E. Renaudot, Relat. Ancienn. des Indes,
p. 228-271, Paris, 1718 ; Asseman. Sibl. Orient.
iv. 502-552 ; M(m. de FAcad. des Ins. xxx. 802-
819 ; Gibbon, cap. xlvii. note 118, ed. Milman ;
Remusat, Melancf. Asiat. i. 33 ; Schmidt, Gesck.
der Ost Mongolen, p. 384. This last denies that
there is any satisfactory proof that this monu-
ment was ever found in China. He declares that
it was manufactured in Europe by the Jesuits,
but does not explain how it could benefit the
Jesuits to invent a monument which only re-
dounds to the credit of Oriental heretics ; as
Mosheim has well remarked in his learned note
on this inscription (H. E. cent. vii. par. i. cap. i.).
NESTORIANISM
Cf. tor latest discussions of it, Gibbings's edit, of
Mosheim's Mem. of Church in China, Dub. 1862;
Neumann, Zeitsch. der deutsch. Morgenland. Ge-
sellsch. iv. 38 (1850) ; Renan, Bist. Lang. Semit. p.
282. These last two writers are dubious about it.
We meet with rather a curious account of Nesto-
rianism as it existed in Central Asia in the 10th
century in Albiruni's Chronology of Ancient Na-
tions, p. 306, whose importance as a historian has
been already pointed out (t. iii. p. 794). He lived
at Khiva between a.d. 973-1048. In his account
of the Nestorians he dwells on their intellectual
activity as a specially notable feature distin-
guishing them from the Catholic party. The
original tone imparted by Theodore and the
great Syriac writers at once struck the acute Ma-
hometan. " Nestorius," he says, " instigated people
to examine for themselves, and to use the instru-
ments of logic and analogy in meeting their
opponents." He gives us some very curious de-
tails about their feasts and ritual. He noticed
that Nestorians and Melchites, as he calls the
orthodox party, agreed about the observance of
Lent, Christmas and Epiphany, but disagreed
about other feasts and fasts. The Nestorians
evidently retained, or perhaps adopted, some
Jewish ideas from the great Jewish schools ic
Babylonia. OnthefeastofMa'al'tha(Ingressus),
Alblrftnt tells us, they wandered from the naves
of their churches up to their roofs in memory
of the return of the Israelites to Jerusalem.
According to this writer the majority of the
inhabitants of Syria, 'Irak and Khurasan were
Nestorians, their catholicus being appointed by
the khalif on the nomination of the leaders of the
sect. The direct influence of Nestorianism on the
West was not very great. During the 6th and
following centuries they seem to have followed
closely in the train of the Persian and Saracen
invasions of the empire, till under the khalifs
their hierarchy extended from China to Cyprus
and Jerusalem. A considerable Nestorian ele-
ment, indeed, continued to exist in the leading
cities of the empire, notwithstanding the sever*
edicts of Theodosius and succeeding emperors.
In A.D. 433, on the death of his intruding suc-
cessor, the friends and partisans of Nestorius
were numerous enough in Constantinople to
raise a riot demanding his restoration, while
again in the next century we find that Cosmas
Indicopleustes, to whom we have referred, was a
Nestorian at Alexandria (La Crose, Christianismr
des Indus, i. 40-55 ; Asseman. 1. c. iv. 605, 606).
Tillemont, indeed, discovers traces of it in the
empire till the close of the 6th cent. {Mem.
t. xiv. p. 615 sqq.) But indirectly Nestorianism
has had a considerable intellectual influence on
the West through the controversy about the
three chapters and the writings of JuNir.ius
and FACUNDr/8 in the 6th century (cf. Kihny
Theodor von Mopsuestia, Freiburg, 1880). Th»
leading dogma of Nestorianism was revived in a
modified shape by the Adoptionists of Spain (cC
vol. I. p. 44 and Felix of Urgel ; Neander,
H. E. v. 218.
Literature. — The most exhaustive work on
Nestorianism, ancient and modern alike, is
Asseman. Biblioth. Oriental, t. iv. This -volume,
of 950 pp., is occupied with this subject alone.
It collects information from all quarters, espe-
cially from the Oriental writers, concerning their
history, ritual, organisation, schools and mis-
Digitized by
Google
NEST0RIANU8
siane. In other volnmes of the same work
Assemani gives more information on the same
subject, cf. tip. 203, t. iii. 64-70, 378-395,
396-410, 580-589 ; and t. it. 387-163 for an
elaborate catalogue of the patriarchs of the Nes-
torians (cf. Le Quien, Orient Christ, ii. 1078-
1341). These two works bring down their history
to the last century. The original documents
concerning the councils of Ephesus, and the
ether councils and synods held in connexion
therewith, will be found in Mansi (Condi, tt. it.,
t. and vi.y There is a careful statement of the
history in Natalia Alexander (H. E. saec. v. cap.
iii. art. 12, p. 56-64, ed. Mansi), and an exhaus-
tive monograph in Hefele's Councils, lib. ix.,
which will be found in the third vol. of Clark's
translation of that work. Among the most
recent works on the subject are Badger's
Jig$iorian$ and their Ritual, London, 1852;
Kenan, Mist. Lang. Semit., very useful upon the
spread of Syriac through Nestorion agencies,
p. 277 passim ; Mosheim's Authentic Memoirs of
Christian Church in China, ed. R. Gibbings, B.D.,
Dublin, 1862 ; Georgius Ebedjesu Khajjath,
Bi/ri Orientales seu Chalaaei Nestoriani et
Soman. Pontiff. Primatus, Rom. 1870; Peter-
mann's art. Kestorians, in new ed. of Herzog's
&eal-Bncychp. [G. T. S.]
KE8TOBIANTJS, a Greek historian, who
flourished a.D. 474. He wrote the lives of the
Roman emperors to the death of Leo the
younger. He is cited by John Malalaa, who
calls him the wisest of the chronographers.
Garnerius in his preface to Liberatus, Num. 11,
makes him the same as Nestorius bishop of
PhragotMs [Nestorius (4)], but, as Cave
thinks, on the most flimsy grounds. (Cave,
HM. Lit. L 454.) [G. T. 8.]
NESTORIUS (1). ST. (Nestor), Feb. 26,
the first known bishop of Side in Pampbylia
Prima, one MS. calling him, but incorrectly,
bishop of Perga (Le Quien, i. 997). He was a
martyr in the Decian persecution, A.D. 250,
under a president variously called Publius,
Pollion, or Polius. His Acts in a Latin version
hare long been known. They are given in a
concise shape in Ado's martyrology; and in a
longer shape in AA. SS. Boll. Feb. iii. 627. He
is also commemorated in Martyr. Vet. Bom. and
Canard. The acts have been hitherto considered
worthless. Aube, however, discovered the
original Greek Acts in a MS. of the National
Library at Paris, which he printed in the Revue
Archiiogique for April, 1884, pp. 215-234, to-
gether with the Latin version and an elaborate
commentary. He was arrested by the local
Irenarch, required to sacrifice, and on his
refusal despatched in charge of two lictors
to the court of the president Pollio, who
tortured and then crucified him. The martyr's
answer to the president's queries sufficiently
indicate his theological position. Pollio said
to him, "Are you willing to take part with
as or with Christ ? " To which Nestor replied,
" Cum Christo meo et eram, et sum, et ero ;"
to which the indignant president replied that
as he was devoted to Jesus who was crucified
under Pontius Pilate, he should be crucified
like his God. The acts fix even the day and hour
ef Jus martyrdom; it happened on the fifth day
CUBIST. KOGB.— VOL IT.
NESTORIUS 33
of the week at the third hour. Le Blunt, in his
Actes des Martyrs, p. 46, points out the accuracy
of the details. [G. T. 8.]
NESTORIUS (2) (Nestor), prefect of Egypt
in 349 (Athan. Ap. c. Ar. § 56. Hist. Ar. § 23,
Fit. Ant. § 86 ; Tillem. viii. 122, 125, 135).
[C.H.]
NESTORIUS (8), patriarch of Constan-
tinople, A.D. 428-431. He was a native of
Germadicia, the birthplace of Leo the Isauriau
and Iconoclast some three centuries later. He
became a monk of the convent of St. Euprepius
near the gates of Antioch, where he attained
great popularity as a preacher, having a fine
voice and a great reputation for ascetic holiness.
He was very diligent as a student of theology,
so that on one occasion he even denounced somo
expressions of Theodore of Mopsuestia as unortho-
dox, though in general he was a devoted adherent
of the system taught by Theodore and Diodore of
Tarsus. After the death of Sisinnius, the church
of Constantinople was so divided into opposing
factions that the emperor resolved that none of
that church should fill the vacant see ; he there-
fore promoted Nestorius to the post, hoping that
his eloquence would be useful in the instruction
and guidance of the people. He was consecrated
on April 10, 428, more than three months after
the death of Sisinnius, which had happened on
Dec. 24 of the preceding year. His first sermon
proved him to be of a fierce and intolerant spirit.
Addressing the emperor, he said, " Give me, my
prince, the earth purged of heretics, and I will
give you heaven as a. recompense. Assist me in
destroying heretics, and I will assist you in van-
quishing the Persians." He proceeded at once
to put his intolerant views into practice. Five
days after his consecration he demolished a private
oratory used by the Arian community ; an act
which caused a conflagration, for when the
Arians saw the work of destruction going for-
ward, they set fire to the building, which,
spreading on nil sides, reduced many other
buildings to ashes. He next assailed the Nova-
tians, being jealous of the reputation for piety
enjoyed by Paul their bishop. The emperor,
however, would not allow them to be persecuted.
He attacked the Quartodecimans in Asia, Lydia,
and Caria, causing fearful riots and loss of life
at Miletus and Sard is. His example proved
contagious. Antony, bishop of a city of the
Hellespont, began to persecute the Macedo-
nians with such violence that two of that sect
assassinated him. This increased the rage of
Nestorius, who immediately deprived them of
their churches at Constantinople, and throughout
his whole province. In this course of action he
was ably seconded by a presbyter, Anastasius,
whom he had brought with him from Antioch to
assist in the management of his diocese. This
man was an extreme adherent of the Syrian
school of theology, and his preaching first raised
the controversy which proved fata) to Nestorius.
Anastasius was intolerant of all opposition to his
views. Apollinarian dogmas were specially
repugnant to his school, to which heresy the
popular theology of Constantinople seemed to
him to incline. He therefore assailed it in a
controversial sermon, in which he said, " Let no
man call Mary Theotocos ; for Mary was but
D
Digitized by
Google
34
NEST0BIU8
s woman, and it is impossible that God should
be born of a woman ;" a statement which caused
great excitement, especially when endorsed and
defended by the patriarch himself in a series of
set discourses. The further history, however, of
this controversy most be sought in the article
Nbstorianism and the references there given.
We shall here confine ourselves to the events of
his personal life. After the council of Ephesus,
Nestorius was deposed from his bishopric by the
emperor's authority. Socrates indeed, who takes
a very moderate and dispassionate view of Nes-
torius, tells us (Zf. E. vii. 34) that when he
found his cause hopeless, he cried out in bitter
regret, " Let Mary be called Theotocos, if you
will, and let all disputing cease." His regrets,
however, availed him nothing. His friends fell
off on every side, even including John of An-
tioch, who had stoutly supported him. He was
banished first to his former monastery of St.
Euprepius, near Antioch. John of Antioch,
however, felt his presence near his episcopal
seat a reproach to his own inconsistency, so,
After a lapse of four years (Evag. i. 7), John
prayed for his exile to some more distant place,
whereupon he was sent to the Oasis of Ptole-
mais, whither the worst criminals were usually
transported, and exposed to the attacks of the
nomadic Arabs or Ethiopians who, under the
name of Blemmyes, were known as the most
formidable enemies of the Roman power in
North Africa. He occupied himself in the pre-
paration of a defence of his conduct, and his
doctrines, addressed according, to Evagrius,
■{I. c.) to a certain Egyptian. He was captured
after some years by the Blemmyes, and liberated
in the Thebaid, whence he addressed pitiful
supplications to the governor of the locality,
extracts from which are given by Evagrius.
He was then re-arrested, dragged hither and
thither, and finally died of his ill-treatment,
though ecclesiastical bitterness represents
that " when his tongue had been eaten
through with worms, he departed to the
greater and everlasting judgment" (Evag.
I. ft). He died some time subsequent to A.D.
439, for he was yet alive when Socrates wrote
his history. E. Revillout, in a mem. on the
Blemmyes read before the Acad, des Inscrip.
and published in their Mem. t. viii. 1st Ser.
1874, pp. 396-401, discusses his place of exile,
his persecution by the celebrated monk Senuti,
and the time of his death, which he fixes about
A.D. 454. He maintains out of a Coptic MS. of
the life of Dioscorus of Alexandria (discovered
among the Fayum MSS., and lately printed in
the Bevue Egyptologique, 1880-1883, cf. Kriiger's
Monoph. Streitigk. p. 12 sqq. Jena, 1884), that
Nestorius was summoned to the Fourth General
Council, but died before the summons reached
him ; a view which gains some support from
Evagrius H. E. ii. 2. [Sendti]. The writings of
Nestorius were consigned to the flames by an
edict of Theodosius ; they were therefore dili-
gently extirpated by the magistrates (cf. Jac.
Uretser, de jure prohibendi libros malos, lib. i.
cap. 9); while a passage in John Moschus
(Spirit. Prat. c. 46) proves that the clergy
were not backward in the work of destruc-
tion [Hesvchiub (26)]. We have therefore
almost none of his writings, save what have
been preserved in the replies of his adversaries.
NETHALENUS, NETHELMUS
His principal works seem to have been— a treatise,
De Znat'-natione Domini, which contained sixty-
two passages of scripture, interpreted according
to his system ; a volume of sermons arranged in
the order of the alphabet, and his apology com-
posed in Egypt (cf. Gennadius, de Vir IltunL, cap.
53). An accurate statement, however, of all his
admitted and dubious writings is contained in
Fabricius Bib. Qraec. ed. Hai-les, t. x. p. 529-
549. The liturgy attributed to him will be
found in Eus. Renaudot, Litwrg. Orient. Collect.
t. i.
The tomb of Nestorius continued to be for
ages a subject of interest to the Persian Nesto-
rians. Asseman. Bib. Orient, i. ii. p. 316, tells
us how incensed they were in the year 805,
when they heard that his tomb was subjected to
insults in Egypt. A certain historian, Gabriel,
physician to the Khalif, used his master's in-
fluence, and obtained a letter demanding from
the ruler of Egypt possession of the sacred relics.
The Nestorians were, however, appeased by a
hermit of their sect, who assured them that the
tomb which had been insulted was not really
that of Nestorius ; and that Nestorius was like
Moses in this respect, no man knew of his real
sepulchre. The original authorities for his life
have been all quoted, either in this article, or in
that on Nestorianism. For a convenient sum-
mary of his life and list of his reputed writings,
see Ceillier, t. viii. 366-374. Fabricius (i. c)
gives six reasons assigned by Nestorius justifying
the imprecatory psalms, as published by Scipio
Maffeus from a Catena inedita ad Ptalm. xxxir.
They are these— (1) To make David's adversaries
better through affliction. (2) To secure their
eternal good through present afflictions. (3) To
edify and instruct others. (4) To remove evil-
doers from the earth and thus benefit society.
(5) To warn others by fear of like punishments.
(6) To prevent atheism and manifest a pro-
vidence. [G. T. S.]
NESTORIUS (4), bishop of Phragones in
Egypt, a prelate of orthodox convictions at the
time of the Eutychian controversy. He attended
the council of Chalcedon and subscribed the con-
demnation of Nestorius ; assisted at the election
of Proterius to the see of Alexandria, a.d. 452
(Liberatus, Breviarium, cap. xiv.) ; carried a
letter of Proterius to Leo the Great at Borne,
A.D. 454 (Leonis Epp. exxix. cap. 1), and an
accompanying letter of the emperor Marcian
(Leon. Epp. exxx. cap. 1). Afterwards, in 458,
fled, with other bishops and clerics, to Constanti-
nople, to escape the persecution of Timothens
Aelurus (q. v.). Leo addressed to them there a
letter of commendation and encouragement.
(Ep. clx. and see Le Quien, Orient Christianas, ii.
p. 566.) [a G.]
NESTORIUS (5), addressed by Theodoret,
Ep. 172. [C. H.]
NESTORIUS (6). fourteenth Nestorian
bishop of Ailjabene (called also Hazza and Arbela)
on the Tigris, a.d. 800. (Assem. BiU. Or. iii.
492 ; Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 1232.) [J. G.]
NETHALENUS, NETHELMUS. [Na-
THALAX.]
Digitized by
Google
NETRA8
NETRAS. [Naththas.]
NICAE AS of Romaciaoa. [Nicetas (3).]
NICANDER (1) (N.WSpot), an exceptor,
advised by Nilus (lib. ii. ep. 148 in Pat. Lat.
lxxix.) to take no heed to works of magic and
•enary. re. B -j
NICANDER (2% a stylite to whom Nilus
(lib. u. epp. 114, 115) addressed the warning
text, "He that exalteth himself shall be abased."
[XlUJg ( ).] But Tillemont doubts, on chro-
nological and other grounds, if these letters
could hare been written by St. Nilns. (Tillem.
liv. 214 ; xv. 362, 365.) [C. H.]
NICANDER (8), martyr in Moesia. [Mar-
tiaxus (23) in D. C. A.2
NICARETE (NwopeVT,), a lady belonging to
one of the noblest and richest families of Nico-
media, who devoted herself to perpetual virginity
in connection with the church of Constantinople.
She was warmly attached to Chrysostom, and
wss punished for her devotion to' his cause by
the confiscation of the greater part of her
property in the troubles that followed his expul-
sion. She was at this time advanced in life, and
had a large household dependent on her, bnt
she managed her lessened resources with such
wise economy that she not only had enough for
their wants and her own, but also to give
Urgely to the poor. She was skilled in the com-
[wandfng of medicines, often succeeding in curing
those who had derived no benefit from regular
physicians. Her humility and self-distrust were
such that she would never become a deaconess,
sad declined the office of lady superior of the
consecrated virgins which was earnestly pressed
en her by Chrysostom himself. She retired from
Constantinople to avoid the persecution in 404
aj>. (Soz. H. E. viu. 23> She is commemorated
«o December 27. n£. V.]
NICABBTUS (1) (Niwdoeroj), reproved by
Xilos (lib. ii. 284 in Pat. Lot. lxxix.) for fre-
questing the theatre. [C. H.]
NICARETUS (2), a scriniarius addressed
by Kilus (lib. i. ep. 231) on the overwhelming
nature of sorrow when left without aid and
«r m P»* n r- [C. h.]
NICASIUS (1), reputed first bishop of
R«uen, ordained by St. Dionysius of Paris cir.
IM, but more probably a presbyter, martyred
in the Vexin. (Gall. Chr.xi.i-, cf. Tillem. iv.
" i85 -) * [C. H.]
NICEPHORUS
35
NICEA, NICAEA, martyr. [Galonica.]
NICEAS of Romaciana. [Nicetas (3).]
NICEAS (1), subdeacon of Aquilcia ad-
dressed by St. Jerome in 375 or 376 {Ep. 8 in
Pat. Lat. xxii. 341, and note ; Tillem. xii. 11, 13,
xv. 817; Ceill. vii. 582). He is sometimes
identified with the Nicetas praised by Paulinus.
[Nicetas (3).] [ C . h.]
NICEAS (2) (N«*'as), a Christian charioteer
at Neapolis (Sichem) in 529, when Julian, re-
cently crowned by the Samaritans [Juuanus
(110)], celebrated the Circenses in that town
Niceas carried off the first prize, and on present-
ing himself to receive it was asked by Julian of
what religion he was. He avowed himself a
Christian and was executed on the siwrt. (Joan
Malal. pt. ii. p. 180, Oxon.) [T. W. R]
NICENTTUS, mentioned by Ambrose {Ep.
v. 8), with reference to the affair of Indicia, as
an ex-tribune and notary who had ordered a
slave girl to be examined by a midwife on a
charge of unchastity. A story is told of him
by Paulinus in his life of Ambrose (§ 44). He
suffered from gout in the feet; and when once,
on approaching the altar to receive the sacra-
ment, he was accidentally kicked by Ambrose,
the pain made him cry out. Ambrose there-
upon said to him, "Go, and thou shalt straight-
way be whole." That he never suffered again,
he testified with tears at the time of Ambrose's
death - [J. LI. D.]
NICEPHORUS (1) (NiceforUs, Hartel),
Roman acolyte, a.d. 251, went to Rome with
Mettiub (Cyp. Ep. 45) and took from Cornelius
to Cyprian the news of the accession to the side
of the former by Noratianizing confessors
[Maximus (7)], and of the sailing for Carthage of
Novatian's second batch of emissaries. (Cyp
Ep. 49, 52.) [E. W. Rj
NICEPHORUS (2% Feb. 25, martyr in
Egypt, with six others, under the emperor Nume-
rianus and the governor Sabinus. They belonged
to Corinth, where they confessed the faith in the
Decian persecution before the proconsul Tertius.
(Asseman. AA. MM. Orient, et Occident, t ii p'
60 ; Ceill. ii. p. 464.) [G. T S]
NICASIt T S (2) (Necasius), a bishop in Pro-
consular Africa, designated " Culcitanus," at
the council of Carthage in 348. At his sugges-
tion it was enacted in the sixth canon that the
clergy should not act in the capacity of stewards
and legal directors in families. (Mansi, iii. 147,
155 ; iforcelli, i. 148.) [C. H.]
NICASIUS (8), Dec. 14, eleventh bishop of
Kheims, slain by the Vandals in 407, with his
niter Eutropia." (Klodoard, Hist. Eccl. Rem. i.
6, 7, ii 5, § 27, 6 in Put. Lat. exxxv. 36, 40, 42,
105, 106 ; Hart. Usuard. ; Gall. Ckr. ix. 6, 203 ;
Tillem. x. 463.) [C. H.]
NICEPHORUS (3), Feb. 9, martyr at An-
tioch about tbe year 260, under the emperor
Valerian. His story is a very interesting one.
He was an intimate friend of a Christian priest
called Sapricius, but they had a quarrel. Nice-
phorns sought in every way to bring about a
reconciliation, but Sapricius was inexorable.
The persecution after a time waxed very hot.
Sapricius was arrested, endured torture, and was
condemned to die by the sword. Nicephorus
again sought his favour, and was again refused.
Thereupon God withdrew the grace of constancy,
which Sapricius hod hitherto possessed. He
consented to sacrifice, notwithstanding the en-
treaties of Nicephorus, who at once took his
place, and suffered death for Christ. (Ruinart,
Acta Smcera, p. 244 ; Ceill. ii. 392.) [G. T. S.]
D 2
Digitized by VjOOQlC
36
NICEPHORUS
NICEPHORUS (4), praised by Nilus Q\b.
ii. ep. 183 ; Tillem. x. 353). [C. H.]
NICEPHORUS (5), of Antioch, surnamcd
the Heavenly, on account of his eloquence. He
was also called Marylarpos, a title equivalent to
Professor. Cf. Soiceri Thesaur. s. v. Mayiartpuf
vis. The surname Malalas belonging to John of
Antioch seems to have had much the same
meaning. [Malalas.] His only extant work is
the Life of Symeon Stylites, Jr., which wil! be
found in Migne, P. 0. t. lxxxvi. Pars Posterior,
col. 2984. Nicephorus Callist. (H. E. xviii. 24)
says that Simeon's life was written by another
'Svp*uvi fiayltrrpcp r$ Ovv$. This last word
seems a contraction for ifiuvvpsp. [G. T. S.]
NICEPHORUS (6), a presbyter of St. Sophia
in C. P., A.D. 480, who wrote the life of a fanatic
lamed Andrew, who pretended to be a fool for
Christ's sake. He lived under Zeno the Isaurian.
The MS. is extant in the Imperial Library of
Vienna. (Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 456.) [G. T. S.]
NICEPHORUS (7), bishop of Sebaste in
Armenia, exiled by the emperor Justin in 518.
(Assem. B. 0. t. ii. Dissert, de Monoph. num. 2 ;
Le Quien, Or. Chr. I 425.) [C. H.]
NICEPHORUS (8) I., emperor, was de-
scended from an Arabian king, who had become a
Christian, and had fled to Constantinople in the
reign of Heraclius. He held the office of grand
logothete or treasurer under the empress Irene.
In A.D. 802 a conspiracy to place him on the
throne was formed by some of the great officers
of the palace, who were displeased at the ascend-
ency the eunuch Aetius had acquired over the
empress. On the night of October 31st, the con-
spirators seized the palace, pretending that it
was by Irene's orders that Nicephorus was pro-
claimed emperor. Guards were placed round
the palace of Eleutherius where the empress was,
and at dawn she was removed to the palace and
placed in confinement. Nicephorus was then
crowned at Saint Sophia. The next day he had
an interview with his dethroned mistress ; and,
by promising that she shonld be kindly treated,
and professing that he had been forced to ascend
the throne against his will, persuaded her to dis-
close where the imperial treasures were con-
cealed. Having thus attained his object, he
banished her first to the island of Prinkipo and
then to Lesbos, where she died in the following
August [Ikkne II. vol. iii. p. 285].
The early years of his reign were troubled
by rebellion at home and war abroad. He refused
on his accession to continue the tribute which
Irene had paid to Haroun al Raschid. The
indignant caliph invaded Asia Minor and at-
tacked Heraclea. The army which had been sent
against him revolted in July, proclaimed their
commonder, the patrician Bardanes, emperor
against his will, and advanced on Chrysopolis.
The citizens refusing to admit him he withdrew,
and obtaining from Nicephorus an amnesty for
himself and his adherents, guaranteed by the
patriarch and all the nobles, he retired in Septem-
ber to the island of Prote, where he assumed the
monastic habit. Nicephorus in violation of his
promise confiscated his property, banished his
chief adherent!, and deprived his troops of their
NICEPHORUS
pay. Bardanes, the following year, was blinded
by some Lycaonian brigands who had made a
descent on the island ; and it was suspected that
the emperor was implicated in the crime.
Nicephorus, in consequence of this rebellion, was
obliged to make peace with the caliph, but broke
it as soon as the latter had retreated. The
Arabs, however, recrossed Mount Taurus in the
middle of winter, and in the August of a.d. 804,
Nicephorus, who had taken the command in
person, was defeated with heavy loss at Crasns
in Phrygia, by Djabril Ibn Jahja, having a
narrow escape of being made prisoner himself.
An armistice followed, which was violated the
next year by the emperor rebuilding Ancyra and
some other fortresses, and making incursions into
Syria. In A.D. 806, Hnroun, who had been en-
gaged the previous year in Persia, again invaded
Asia Minor at the head of 300,000 men. He
built a mosque at Tyana as a token of its
annexation to his dominions, ravaged the whole
country, and took several strong places. Nice-
phorus was obliged to sue for peace, which he
obtained on condition of paying an annual tribute
of 30,000 pieces of gold, and three in addition as
a personal tribute from himself, and the same
from his son. This peace was again violated by
the Greeks rebuilding the demolished fortresses,
and defeating two Arabian armies near Tarsus.
The Arabs retaliated by another invasion, by
ravaging Cyprus, and, in September A.D. 807,
Rhodes. (Weil, Gesc/iichtt tier Chalifen, ii. 158-
162.)
To strengthen himself at home, Nicephorus had
his son Stauracius crowned in Saint Sophia in
December A.D. 803, and four years later selected
as his wife Theophano, a relation of the deposed
empress, though she was already betrothed to
another man.
In February A.D. 806, the patriarch Tarasius
died ; and Nicephorus seems to have taken con-
siderable pains to choose a fitting successor
(Ignatius, Vita S. Jficephori 21, in Migne.
P.itr. Qraec. c. 64.) He finally selected his
namesake, Nicephorus, who was still a lay-
man. The new patriarch was forbidden to hold
any communication with the pope, whom the
emperor regarded as the adherent of his rival,
Charlemagne (Theophanes, 419 in Patr. Oraeca,
cviii. 993). The same year a synod wss held, in
which the oeconomus Josephcs (30), who.
had been degraded from the priesthood for
having celebrated the marriage of Constan-
tino and Theodote, was, at the instigation
of the emperor, restored. (Michael, Vita
S. TKeodori Studitae, 43, 44 ; S. Theod. Stud.
Epp. xxxiii. in Patr. Qraec. xcix. 156, 1017.)
Theodore, abbat of Studium, and his brother
Joseph withdrew from communion with the
patriarch. Their conduct soon attracted notice.
The emperor had been previously inclined to>
expel them from Constantinople, because they
had opposed the appointment of Nicephorus on
the ground of his being a layman, and he had only
been dissuaded by representations of the odium
that would be caused by the banishment of 700
monks and the destruction of so famous a
monastery, and he now took advantage of his
opportunity. In January a.d. 809 a synod was
convened, by which Theodore and Joseph, with the
recluse Plato and ten other monks, who adhered
to them, were banished from Constantinople
Digitized by
Google
NICEPHOKUS
Tin tame synod declared that emperors were
•bore the divine law, and asserted that each
bishop had the power of granting dispensations
from the canons (S. Theodor. Stud. Epp. xxxiii.).
In February a.d. 808, a conspiracy of many
influential persons was formed to place the
quaestor Arsaber on the throne. The plot was
detected by Nicephorus, who compelled Arsaber
to become a monk and banished him to Bithynia,
' ud punished his supporters with corporal
punishment, banishment, and confiscation of
their property, not sparing certain bishops and
monks, and the syncellus, sacristan, and librarian
of Saint Sophia, who were among the con-
spirators.
la a.d. 809 we first hear of Bulgarian inroads.
in the spring of that year their king Crumn took
Sardica. Nicephorus marched against him, de-
i daring that he would keep his Easter in his
palace. His hopes were frustrated by a dangerous
emtio;' in the army, which was with difficulty
appeased. The following winter he caused
oilitarj colonies to be planted on the Bulgarian
frontier, a measure which, according to Theo-
poaaes, occasioned much discontent. In October
a-D. 810 he had a narrow escape from a mad
oonk who attacked him with a sword.
» In May a.d. 81 1 he again, with his son Staura-
das, took the field against the Bulgarians. He
atered their territory on July 20th, and
appears to hare been at first successful and to
uve taken the palace of Crumn himself. The
account of what follows is very obscure ; we hear
<£ desertions to the Bulgarians, who at last
aurounded the whole Roman army, and finally
attacked at dawn on the 25th. They were
completely successful, Nicephorus himself was
tilled, his son mortally wounded, and the greater
part of the officers and soldiers perished. The
, tod of Nicephorus was exposed on a pole for
tone days, and the skull was mounted in silver
a a drinking cup, and preserved in the royal
family of Bulgaria.
His relations with the West may be briefly
noticed. At the deposition of Irene, ambassadors
own Charlemagne were at Constantinople, who
iad come to negotiate a reunion of the Eastern
«m1 Western empires by means of a marriage of
their sovereigns. On their return they were
' actompanied by ambassadors from Nicephorus,
who concluded a treaty with Charlemagne on
tac banks of the Saal, by which Venice and the
does of the Dalmatian coast were left to the
Ustem empire. Notwithstanding this treaty,
attempts on the Dalmatian towns in A.D. 80(3,
aad one on Venice in a.d. 808, the latter under
the command of Pippin king of Italy in person,
ate mentioned. The fleets of the Eastern empire,
commanded in the former year by the patrician
iicetas, and in the latter by Paul the governor
«f Cephalonia, seem to have successfully re-
puted these attacks, and in a.d. 810 a new treaty
»aa concluded between Nicephorus and Charle-
nagne. (Eiahard, Annalei in Pair. Lat. cir.
443-473; A. Dandolo. CAron. in Muratori,
br. Intl. Scr. xii. 151-158.)
Nicepherua appears to have been a skilful
tbeogh rapacious financier. A list of his chief
financial measures is given by Theophanes (411,
412). The only one that need be noticed here
i< his extending the hearth-tax to monasteries
and charitable institutions, and making it retro-
NICETAS
37
spective to the first year of his reign. He also
quartered his officers in bishops' residences and
in monasteries, and blaming those who had
dedicated gold or silver in churches, declared
that church property ought to be applied for
the service of the state. He favoured the
Paulicians and Athingans who lived in Phrygia
and Lycaonia, and is accused of having had
recourse to their divinations. (Theophanes, Chron.
402-416; G. Cedrenus, 829-843 in Patr. Or.
exxi. 912-928 ; Zonaras,iv. 13-15 in Patr. Graec.
exxxiv. 1352-1361 ; Finlay ii. 92-107.) [F. D.]
NICETA, martyr. See Galonica.
NICETAS (1), legendary brother of Clement
of Rome {Sec. vii., Horn. xiii.). [G. S.]
NICETAS (2), the father of Herodes the
Irenarch (Euseb. H. E. iv. 15). [G. S.]
NICETAS (8) (Nicaeas, Niceas, Nicias),
bishop of Romaciana or Remetiana in Dacia, a
place which is identified in an article on Bul-
garian topography by Professor Tomaschek, of
Graz, in the SUitmgsberichte der Wiener Akad.
1881-82, t. xcix. p. 441. Our knowledge of
him is derived from tho epistles and poems
of Paulinus of Nola, whom he visited, a.d. 398
and 402, and who has devoted to him two
poems (Nos. 17 and 24), composed for the feast
of St. Felix. He was probably a native of Dacia,
and may have been the Nicias, or Nicaeas, sub-
deacon of Aquileia, to whom St. Jerome wrote
(Hieron., Ep. 42 (or 8) ap. Migne, Pat. Lat. xxii.
341), yet many doubt it. He evangelized the
Scythae, Getae, Daci, Bessi, and Riphaei, but
settled specially among tho Daci, reducing the
wild manners of the barbarians to meekness and
honesty. He was noted for eloquence and learn-
ing, honoured by the Romans when he visited
them, and specially beloved by Paulinus at Nola,
but we cannot define the extent of his see or the
dates of his episcopate. He is identified by
Baronius {Mart. Horn. Jun. 22) with Nicaeas, or
Nicetas, of Aquileia, who must, however, be
later, A.D. 454-485 (Gams, Ser. Episa. 773;
Cave, Hid. Lit. i. 399). The double form,
Nicetas and Niceas, has introduced much diffi-
culty, and has allowed the double commemora-
tions of Jan. 7 and June 22. (Boll. Acta SS. Jan.
i. 365 ; and Jun. iv. 243 ; Tillemont, H. E. x. 263,
sq.; Fleurv, H. E. xxi. c 31 ; Ceillier, Aut. Sacr.
t. 458, viii. 84.) [G. T. S.]
Gennadius {De Fir. III. c. xxii.) says he com-
posed, in a simple and graceful style, six instruc-
tions to neophytes, regarding their general
conduct and the gentile errors, also "de fide
unicae Majestatis, adversus genealogiara (or ge-
ncthlogiain), de symbolo, de agni paschalis
victims ; " they are all lost. Gennadius mentions
another, "ad lapsam virginem libellum," which
from the nature of the subject alone has been
identified with the De Laps* Virginia consecratac,
which is usually found attached to the works of
St. Ambrose (Migne, Pat. Lat. xvi. 367), but
the conjecture is unsupported by evidence, and
many might write on the some subject. [J. G.]
NICETAS (4), bishop of Aquileia, in 458.
Leo the Great addressed him a letter {Ep. clix.)
answering a number of questions he had asked
as to the course to be pursued in certain disci-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
88 NICETAS
plinary difficulties, arising mainly ont of the
Hunnish invasion (eg. when a woman had mar-
ried a second husband during the captivity of
her first, believing him to be dead, what was to
be done in the event of his return?) Of this
prelate nothing further is known. He is to be
distinguished from Aiceas, the archdeacon of
Aquileia, to whom Jerome wrote, and who seems
to be identical with Niceas or Nicetas, bishop of
Komesiana in Dacia, mentioned by Gennadius,
etc (Ughelli, Italia Sacra, vol. v. p. 24, edit.
1720.) [C. G.]
NICETAS (6), a commander of the imperial
guard under Hernclius. He presented, A.D. 613,
to the great church of Constantinople the sacred
sponge and lance used at the crucifixion. The
sponge was affixed to the relics of the true
cross. (Cliron. fasch. in Migne, Pat. Graeo. t.
xcii. col. 987-990.) About the legend of the
sacred sponge see Willelm Tyr. lib. xx. cap. 25;
Bondelmontius in Descript. C. P. iii. et t. iii.
Hist. Franc, p. 343. [G. T. S.]
NICETA8 (6), 48th patriarch of Constan-
tinople, 78th bishop, unorthodox, A.D. 766-780,
successor to Constantinus II. Nicetas was an
eunuch of Sclavonic origin, presbyter of the
church of the Holy Apostles, and was, contrary
to canon law, consecrated by order of the emperor,
Nov. 16. (Nicephorus puts it in August.) The
brutal treatment of his deposed predecessor in
767 [Constantinus II.] is a stain on Nicetas.
In a.d. 768 Nicctas carried out some repairs
in the great church ; and took the opportunity
to remove some tessclated or mosaic pictures of
Christ and the saints from a neighbouring wing
of the patriarchal palace which was used in con-
nection with processions and as a lodging for the
emperors on ceremonial occasions. Nicetas died
A.D. 780, on Feb. 6th, and was succeeded by Paul.
(Baronius, A.D. 766-780 ; Theoph. Clironog. 369,
370, 371, 373, 382 ; St. Niceph. Patr. C. P. 84,
85; Floury, Hat. da Christ, xliii. 42, 49,50;
xliv. 16, 38.) [W. M. a]
NICETAS (7), bishop of Dadybra in Paph-
lagonia. He was present at the seventh general
council. He may have been the same as Nicetas
the Paphlagonian. whose Encomia on the Apostles
Combefis has published in his Auct. Nov. Bib.
PP. Oraec. There is great uncertainty upon the
whole question. (Cf. Fabr. Bib. Grace, lib. v.,
cap. v., where be is identified with a Nicetas of
the 9th cent.) (Le Quien, Oriem Christ, i. 557.)
[G. T. S.]
NICETAS (8), Mar. 20, bishop of Apollo-
nias and confessor for images (Mend. Grace.
Sirlet.). Le Quien (L 614) believes his see to be
the Bithynian Apol lonias, and places him next to
Theophylact, who flourished in 787. [C. H.]
NICETIUS (1% May 5, bishop of Vienne,
in succession to Nectarius (Gall. Chr. rvi. 13).
Under the year 379, and calling himNiceta, Ado
(Chron. in Pat. Lot. exxiii. 96 a) represents him
as an eminent upholder of the faith against the
Arians. After Mart. Hieron. the Bollandists
(Mai. it 9) commemorate him and Nectarius
together on May 5. Tillemont (iii. 624) con-
siders there is reason to make him and Nectarius
the same person. Hefele (Councils, ii. 405) is
NICETIUS
inclined to identify our Nioetius with him of 874
Nicetius ( )], and the Nicesius of 394, 6ee
Tillem. xvt 104. [C. H.}
NICETIUS, ex-tribune. [Nicestius.]
NICETIUS (2), FLAVIUS, an eminent
orator of Gaul in the time of Sidonius Apolli-
naris (lib. viii. ep. 6 in Pal. Lat. lviii. 594 ;
Tillem. xvi. 269, 270, 279, 749). [C. H.]
NICETIUS (3) (Nicet, Nioessb), ST., 25th
archbishop of Treves, between Aprunculus and
St. Magnericus (circ A.D. 527-566), is a figure
of some importance in the 6th century. In his
day the bishop was already beginning to pas*
into the baron, and the holy pope Nicetius was
already a territorial lord (Freeman, Augusta
Treverorwn, Histor. Essays, 3rd series, p. 111).
Our principal knowledge of him is derived from
Gregory of Tours, who received his information
from St. Aredius, an abbat of Limoges, Nicetius'
disciple ( Vitae Patrum, cap. xvii.). The story is
that from birth he was marked out for the
spiritual life, being born with the tonsure
(corona clerici). As a yonth he entered a
monastery, apparently at Limoges (r.bervinus,
Vita S. Magnerici, i. Boll. ActaSS. Jul. vi. 183),
and becoming, in time, abbat, shewed himself a
strict disciplinarian, setting his face as sternly
against idle conversation as bad actions. On the
death of Aprunculus the clergy desired St. Gall us
for a successor, but king Theoderic had destined
him, by his own wish, for Clermont, and Nicetius
was appointed (Vitae Patrum, cap. vi.). At
Treves, his position was a difficult one. The
Franks who surrounded him were little else
than barbarians, rioting in the license of no
older civilization, and scarcely more than
nominal converts to Christianity. Their respect
Nicetius won by personal asceticism, an inflexi-
ble temper, and fearless demeanor in the face of
the strong, activity in good works, and uncom-
promising orthodoxy. Gregory says of him, on
the authority of Aredius, " nee minitantem
timuit, nee a blandiente delusus est" (Vitae
Patrum, cap. xvii.). His weapon was the power
of excommunication, and this he used freely
agaiust princes and nobles in cases of oppression,
or flagrant immorality (cf. Rettberg, Kircken-
geschkhtc Dcutschlands, i. 462-4). While still an
abbat be is said to have confronted kingTheoderic,
and won his esteem by laying bare to him his
wrong-doings. On his way to Treves to be con-
secrated, he sternly rebuked his escort of nobles
for turning their horses into the standing corn of
the poor, and, himself, drove, them out. Theo-
deric's successor, Theodebert, came into conflict
with him, and some of his court were excommu-
nicated by the bishop. Clotaire, into whose
power Treves came in 555, was an object of
reprobation to the church for the incestuous
marriages he had contracted. Wearied of the
reproofs which these and other iniquities brought
on him, he obtained the bishop's exile by the
judgment of a corrupt assembly of fellow-bishops.
He was, however, restored by Slgebert after
Clotaire's death (circ. a.d. 562), and there is
extant a letter of warm congratulations from an
anonymous ecclesiastic upon the event (Hoo-
theim, Hist. Trerir. i. 40). The councils which
he attended shew his wide-reaching activity.
He was at Clermont in 535, at Toul in 540, at
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NICETIUS
Orleans in 544, at the second of Clermont a
little later, and at Paris in 555 {Gall. Christ.
ink 880). He also convened one himself, under
Theodebald, about 550, at Tonl to ci nsider the
subject of insults which had been levelled at him
by certain persons whom, after his custom, he
had excommunicated for contracting incestuous
marriages. To this council relates the angry
letter of Mapinius, bishop of Rheims, who had
not be«n properly invited (Mansi, ix. 147-50 ;
Patr. Irit. lxxi. 1165-6). His orthodoxy is
illustrated by two extant letters ; one written by
him to Clodosinda, the wife of Alboin the Lom-
bard, urging her to torn her husband to
Catholicism ; the other to the emperor Justinian,
whose lapse in his latter days into a form of
EatTchianiam, Nicetius declares, is lamented by
all Italy, Africa, Spain, and Gaul (Pat. Lot.
lxviii. 375-80; Hontheim, ibid. 47-51). Nicetius
set himself to restore the churches which had
suffered in the storms of the previous genera-
tions, and in part rebuilt the metropolitan
church of Treves, the foundation of which
patriotism ascribed to Helena, the mother of
Coostantine, though it was probably n secular
building of the time of Valentinian and Gratian
(Tenant- Fort. Misc. iiu 11, Patr. Lat. lxxxviii.
134). His alterations and additions are described
by Wiimowsky, Der Dom der Trier, p. 37 sqq.,
and Freeman, ibid. p. 113. For his own defence
in those troublous times he built a castle on a
lofty hill overlooking the Mosel. The walls,
with thirty towers, stretched down to the river
looks, and the bishop's hall, with marble
columns, occupied the highest point (Venant.
Fort. in. 12, Patr. Lat. ibid. 135). It is the
first recorded building of a class which later
ages were greatly to multiply, but its site is
unknown (Freeman, p. 112). For his architec-
tural undertakings he summoned workmen from
Italy (Kufus, Epist, Hontheim, ibid. p. 37).
The high position he made for himself is also
evidenced by the letter of Klorianus, abbat ot
Roman-Moutier, near Lake Como, begging his
influence with Theodebald (Hontheim, ibid. 35-6),
and the praises of Venantius Fortunatus (Misc.
iii 11, Patr. Lat. lxxxviii. 134). He left nume-
rous disciples, chief among them being St.
Aredius ( Yrier) and St. Magnerieus, his successor.
(Vila 8. Aridii, Patr. Lat. lxxi. 1120 ; Ebervmus,
ibid. ; Venant. Fort. iii. 13, Patr. Lat. lxxxviii.
137.) He died about 566, and was buried in the
Church of St. Maximin, where his tomb still is.
Even in Gregory's time it was famous for its
miracles (De Glor. Conf. 94 ; Vitae Patr. xvii.).
The day of his death is given as Dec. 5, but he
is also commemorated Oct. 1 (Qall. Christ, xiii.
382).
Besides his two letters mentioned above, he
was the author of two little treatises called De
VigilUs sercorum Dei and De Psalmodiae Bono,
first published by d'Achery in 1659. They are
slight works of a didactic character, which may
well have been written while he was still a
monk. They are to be found in the Patr. Lat
lxviii. 365-76, and, with the letters, are dis-
cussed at some length by Ceilller, xl. 203-6, and
m the Hist. Lift, de la France, iii. 294-6. The
authorship n( the Te Deum has been erroneously
ascribed toNlceiius, but it is older than his time.
(Hat. Lift. iii. 294 j Tillem. xiii. 963.)
[S. A. B.]
NICETIUS
89
NICETIUS (4) (Nizier), ST., Ap. 2, abp.
of Lyons, between St. Sacerdos and St. Prisons
(circ. a.d. 552-573), "vir totius sanctitatis
egregius, castas conversationis " (Greg. Tur.
Hist. Franc, iv. 36), and one of the few bishops
in the West dignified with the title of '• patri-
arch " (Md. v. 21). We possess two early
biographies of him, one written about the year
590, Joy a clerk of Lyons, at the bidding of
Etherius, second occupant of the see after Nicetius,
the other a few years later by the historian
Gregory of Tours, whose mother was a niece
of Nicetius, and who was himself taught by
him in early years. Dissatisfied with the
meagre information of the earlier life, he under-
took to supplement it, though unfortunately he
adds little but a string of miracles. The
former life was first published by Chifflet and is
also to be found in Boll. Acta US. Apr. i. 100,
(cf. Hist. Litt. iii. 360-1). Gregory's is found in
cap. viii. of his Vitae Patrum. A briefer account
of him is also contained in his De Olor. Conf.
(cap. 61) ; and he is often alluded to in the
Hist. Franc, (iv. 36, v. 5, 21, viii. 6, and see De
Glor. S. Julian, cap. 1).
His father was that Florentius of senatorial
rank, whose wife Artemia persuaded him to
decline the bishopric of Genera, prophesying
that the child she then bore in her womb
was destined to be a bishop of his own flesh and
blood [FfjOBENTiTjS (42)]. This child was called
Nicetius " quasi victorem fcturum mundi." He
was carefully brought up in ecclesiastical learn-
ing, and living on in his mother's house after his
father had died, and he had entered the ranks of
the clergy, was not ashamed to labour with bis
hands. At the age of thirty, he was ordained
priest by Agricola, bishop of Chslons-sur-Sadne
(circ. A.D. 545), and occupied himself much in
teaching the young. Five years later St. Sacer-
dos the archbishop of Lyons, on his death-bed
obtained a promise from king Childebert that
Nicetius, his nephew, should succeed him.
[Sacerdos.] We know very little of his
episcopate except that he presided over the 4th,
or, as it is usually called, the 2nd council of
Lyons, summoned by king Guntram in 566
(Mansi, ix. 785; Ceillier, xi. 887; Hist. Litt. iii.
386) ; that he was remarkable for his insistence
upon the virtue of chastity, for his almsgiving,
and for his hospitality to strangers, whose feet
he would privily wash ; and that, while ener-
getically building churches and houses, culti-
vating fields and planting vineyards, he did not
neglect the duty of prayer.
He died in 573, and his cult was firmly
established when his earlier biographer wrote.
Gregory enumerates many miracles performed
both during his life and after his death, and
refers to a heap of fetters preserved in his
church which had fallen from the limbs of
captives at his tomb. The church of the
Apostles, in which he was buried and his body
long preserved, took his name. Troyes and the
diocese of Tours also possessed relics of him.
For his epitaph in verse see Gall. Christ, iv. 34,
and Boll. Acta SS. 2 Ap. i. 95. [8. A. B.]
NICETIUS (5), ST., archbishop of Besancon,
between Silvester II. and St. Prothadiu?, accord-
ing to an anonymous life to be found in Boll.
Acta 88. 8 Feb. ii. 168-9, was contemporary with
Digitized by
Google
40
NICETIUS
Gregory the Great, and received from him I
several circular epistles urging the extirpation
of simony (none of which, however, have
survived). He is also said to have entertained
St. Columban when exiled from Luxeuil (circ
A.n. 610). The supposed day of his death was '
Feb. 8, on which he is noticed in the Acta SS.,
but he is now commemorated Jan. 31 (Gall.
Christ, xv. 13). He was buried in the church
of St. Peter, which he had restored. [S. A. B.]
NICIAS (1), the bearer of Basil's letter to
the members of the church at Satala in 372, in-
forming them that he had granted their request
that a relation of his own should be sent to them
as bishop. (Basil, Ep. 102 [183].) [E. V.]
NICIAS (2), heretic bishop of Laodicea in
Syria Prima, an adversary of the council of
Chalcedon and an ally of Philoxenus of Hiera-
polis against Flavian of Antioch (Evag. B. E.
iii. 31 ; Le Quien, ii. 796). [C. H.]
NICIAS (8) (NW«), a monk, who wrote (cir.
601) against John Philoponus [Joannes (564)].
Photius (Cod. 50) mentions the titles of his
treatises: Kara rSr rov 4ft\or6vov Kf<pa\aluv
irri (mentioned in the AtarrirHjr of Philoponus) ;
Kara tov Svo-aefrovs IcjSfywu, and Kara 'EAAVw
\6yot Sth. (Cave, i. 573; Dupin.ii. 8, ed. 1722 ;
Ceill. xi. 653.) [C. H.]
NICIAS of Romaciana. [Nicetas (3).]
NICO (IX bishop of Cyzicus, a native of
Maples, martyred in Sicily with numerous com-
panions in the reign of Decius. His Acta
are very fabulous. (Boll. Acta SS. 23 Mart. iii.
442 : he Quien, i. 749 ; Tillem. iii. 334.)
[C. H.]
NICO (2) (NiW), a solitary of Mount Sinai
cir. 400, falsely accused by a woman (Apophth.
Pal. in Cotel. Man. Eccl. Or. i. 577), thought
by Tillemont (xiv. 191, 192) to be the Nico com-
memorated by the Greeks on Nov. 26. [C. H.]
NICO (8), an archimandrite addressed by
Nilus (lib. iii. ep. 119 in Pat. Or. lxxiv.) on the
discredit into which the monastic life had fallen.
(Ceill. viii. 221.) [C. H.]
NICOBULUS (1), the husband of Gregory
Nazianzen's favourite niece Alypiana. From the
very favourable portrait of him drawn by his
uncle, in whose esteem he deservedly stood very
high for his loving and dutiful attention, we
learn that Nicobulus was a man of good birth,
of large wealth, and considerable literary at-
tainments, writing prose and verse with equal
facility. His personal qualifications were as
conspicuous as those of his mind. He was very
tall and singularly handsome. He was a favourite
at court, and served with much distinction in
various campaigns, especially that against the
Persians. His wealth, high character, and apti-
tude for business marked him out for civil ap-
pointments. These, however, were by no means
to his taste, as he preferred a domestic life, with
leisure for his literary pursuits. The pen of
his uncle Gregory was continually employed in
writing to one high official after another to
obtain his excuse from duties which had been
assigned him. In one letter he begs Olympius the
NICOBULUS
governor of Cappadocia Secunda (c 382) to relieve
him of the office of postmaster of the province,
and to substitute some other less onerous charge
(Ep. 178). In another he urges Helladios, his
friend Basil's successor as bishop of Caesarea, to
use his influence to get him excused from such
duties altogether (Ep. 234). There are other
letters of a similar character relating to Nico-
bulus's troubles and difficulties, which it would
be tedious to particularise (Epp. 47, 48, 107,
160, 166, 179 ; cf. Tillemont, Mem. Exle's. ix.
pp. 382 ft". ; 527 ff.). It was at the instance of
Nicobulus that Gregory compiled a collection of
his own letters (Ep. 208), and at his request he
drew up a code of rules for letter-writing, en-
forcing conciseness, perspicuity, and elegance,
and, above all, naturalness ( Ep. 209). Nicobulus
died at an early age, c. 385, leaving his wife
encumbered with the charge of a large family
of children, in very different circumstances from
those she had been accustomed to, and exposed to
the machinations of evil-disposed persons, who
brought suits against her imperilling her pro-
perty (Epp. 44, 45). His eldest son was named
, after him [NioouuLUS(2)],and his eldest daughter
after her mother. (Tillemont, Mim. E- rle's.
torn. ix. pp. 381 IT. ; 527 ff., 545.) [E- V.]
NICOBULUS (8), the eldest son of the
above by Alypiana, the daughter of Gorgonia,
the sister of Gregory Nazianzen. The aged
Gregory lavished all the affectionateness of his
nature on the boy, in whose religious and intel-
lectual progress he took the keenest interest.
He describes him as a quick, clever boy, but
inclined to indolence and needing the spur (Ep.
116). On Nicobulus and his brothers being sent
by their father to Tyana, c. 382, to learn
" tachygraphy," Gregory wrote to commend
them to the care of Theodorus, the bishop of
that city, begging him to see that they had
lodgings near the church. When in the same
or the following year the boys were removed to
Caesarea to study rhetoric, Gregory requested
Helladius, the bishop, to take care that they
were placed under the ablest and most diligent
masters, and to allow them to visit him often,
making them feel he did not look down on them
(Ep. 218). Nicobulus and his brothers had as
their private tutor Eudoxius, the son of an old
friend of Gregory's, to whom he wrote frequent
letters on the subject of the boys' training
(Epp. 115-117; 119-121; 139) [Eudoxics(9)
(10)]. A little later Gregory wrote a poetical
epistle to Nicobulus the elder, in the name of his
son, asking his father's permission to go abroad
to study eloquence as his great-uncle bad done
with such happy results (Cartn. ilix.). To this
Nicobulus replied also in verse (if this be not also
from Gregory's pen), granting the lad's request,
but adding some sage counsels as to the company
lie kept and his general conduct (Carm. 50).
In accordance with this permission the lad went
to Constantinople, where he studied under a
sophist named Photius, who delighted Gregory
with his report of his great-nephew's marvellous
progress (Ep. 118), and afterwards under Stagi-
rius. This arrangement gave great offence to
an old friend and fellow-student of Gregory's
named Eustochius, who wrote violent letters
complaining that the boy had not been placed
under his charge (Epp. 61, 62). [Ecstochius (3).]
Digitized by
Google
NICOCLES
The early death of Nicobulus the elder plunged
his family into trouble, and after the death of
Gregory the boy with his brothers disappears
from onr Tie w. (Tillemont, M€m. Eccles. torn. ix.
pp. 542-545.) [E. V.]
NICOCLES, a Lacedemonian, the instructor
of the emperor Julian in grammar (Soc. //. E.
fii. 1). His name often recurs in the corre-
spon lence of Libanius. In Wolfe's edition of
Libanius (Ep. 1137), Nicocles apologizes to him
for the insults offered by a citizen of Antiocb,
on the ground that in such a populous city
there must be some bad persons. Even in his
own Sparta, with a Lycurgus as legislator, all
the citizens were not equally good. From Ep.
1142 he seems to hare been a pagan, at least
under Julian. [G. T. S.]
NICODEMU8, counselled by Nilus (lib. ii.
«p. 22, in Pat. Or. lxiix.) to be thankful for
poverty, as it will diminish his responsibility in
the day of judgment. [C. H.J
NICOLAITANS. The mention of this
name in the Apocalypse (concerning which see
Dictionary of the Bible, j. v.) has caused it
to appear in almost all lists of heresies ; but
there really is no trustworthy evidence of the
continuance of a sect so called after the death
of the Apostle John. Irenaeus, we know, in
writing his great work made use of a treatise
against heresies by Justin Martyr; and there
seems reason to think that Justin's list began
with Simon Magus, and made no mention of
Nicolaitans. This may be conjectured from the
order in which Irenaeus discusses the heresies,
viz, Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides,
Carpocrates, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, the Nico-
laitans. That these last should hare so late a
place in the list is inconsistent with chronologi-
cal order ; and the most plausible account of the
matter is that Irenaeus followed the order of an
older list, which did not include the Nicolaitans,
and which he afterwards proceeded to supple-
ment by additions of his own. About the
Nicolaitans he has nothing to say (I. zxvi. 3),
but what he found in the Apocalypse ; for the
words " qui indiscrete rivunt," which is the
only thing having the appearance of an addition,
seems to be only an inference from Rev. ii. 13,
14, and 20-22. Irenaeus in a later book (111.
x. 6) incidentally mentions the Nicolaitans as a
branch of the Gnostics, and seems to ascribe to
them the whole body of Ophite doctrine. It
may therefore have been from Irenaeus that
Hippolytus derived his view of these heretics.
In his earlier treatise (see Vol. III. 93), as we
gather from comparing the lists of Epiphanius,
Philaster, and Pseudo-Tertnllian, he brings them
up into an earlier, though still too late a place
is his list, his order being Simon Menander,
Saturninus, Basilides, Nicolaitans ; and he as-
cribes to them the tenets of a fully developed
Ophite system. Concerning this we refer to the
article Ophites, believing that there is no suffi-
cient evidence that these people called themselves
Nicolaitans. In the later work of Hippolytus,
Nicolaus the deacon is made to be the founder of
the Gnostics ; but the notice is short, and goes
little beyond what is told in the first book of
NICOLAUS
41
Irenaeus. It is needless to notice the statement*
of later writers.
Concerning Nicolas the deacon see the article
Nicolas (Dict. op Bible). We merely repeat
here the statement of Stephen Gobar (cf. Phot.
Bibl. 232) that Hippolytus and Epiphanius make
Nicolas answerable for the errors of the sect
called after him, whereas Ignatius,* Clement of
Alexandria, Euscbius, and Theodoret condemn the
sect, but impute none of the blame to Nicolaus
himself. [G. S.]
NICOLAUS (1), Dec. 6, bishop of Myra in
Lycia, at the time of the Diocletian persecution,
and one of the most popular saints both in the
East and West. His acts, which may embody
some historical elements, are filled with legends
and miracles which have become celebrated in
hagiological literature. His father's name is
reputed to have been Epiphanius, and his
mothers Joanna, They lived at the city of
Pataca, where they occupied a high position.
Nicolaus is regarded as the patron of children,
and their exemplar in piety. Accordingly we
are told that as soon as he was born he stood up
and returned thanks to God for the gift of
existence. He rigorously observed the canonical
fnsts of Wednesdays and Fridays, even when an
infant, by abstaining on those days from suck-
ing his mother's breasts. As soon as he grew
to man's estate he adopted the ascetic life, and
went on a journey to Palestine to visit the holy
places. Then began a series of miracles which
have rendered him the favourite patron of
sailors. He predicted bad weather when every-
thing seemed fair and beautiful, calmed storms
which threatened his ship with destruction, and
healed a sailor who had fallen off the mast. He
is said to have been present at the Council of
Nice, where he waxed so indignant with the
sentiments of Arius, that he rushed over and
inflicted a tremendous box on the heretic's ear.
Dean Stanley (Eastern Church, pp. 110, 132)
represents Nicolaus as occupying the central
place in oil the traditional pictures of the
council. Mr. Tozer in bis notes to Finlay's
Hist, of Greece, t, i. p. 124, notes that Nicolaus
has taken the place of Poseidon in Oriental
Christianity. Thus, in the island of EleOssa, a
temple of Poseidon has been changed into the
church of St. Nicolaus. His popularity in
England has been very great, 376 churches
being dedicated to him. ' His feast day was for-
merly connected in Salisbury Cathedral, Eton,
and elsewhere with the curious ceremonial of
choosing a boy-bishop, who presided till the
following Innocents Day, over his fellow
choristers, arrayed in full episcopal attire (cf.
The Antiquities of Catliedral Church of Salisbury,
A.D. 1723, pp. 72-80, where the ritual of the
feast is given). We can trace the fame of this
saint back to the 6th century, when Justinian
built a church in his honour at C. P. (Procop.
de Acdif. i. 6). His relics were translated in
the middle ages to Barri in Italy, whence he is
often styled Nicolaus of Barri. The acts of
Nicolaus will be found at length in Surii Hist.
&inct, and his legends and treatment in art in
Jameson's Sacred Art, t. ii. p. 450. The figure
• The reference Is to the larger form of the Epistle to
the TralUans.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
42
NICOLAUS
of St. Nicolaus is a leading one in the celebrated
Blenheim Raphael, lately purchased for the
National Gallery. " [G. T. S.]
NICOLA US (2), of Damascus, writer on the
Deluge. (Hieron. De Sit. et Xom. Loc. Heb.
lib. i. ; De Oeneti, in Pat. Lot. xxiii. 861 a.)
[C. H.]
NICOLAUS (3), a monk at the end of the
4th century, to whom Marcus the anchorite in-
scribed the eighth book of his work. (Phot. cod.
200.) [C. H.]
NICOLAUS (4), presbyter and monk of the
monastery of St. Publius at Zeugma, to whom,
together with Thoodutus and Chaereas his brother
monks, Chrysostom wrote in 405, thanking them
for their wish to visit him at Cucusus, from
accomplishing which they had been kept by fear
of the lsaurian banditti (Chrys. Ep. 146). It
is probable that he is the same person to whom
Chrysostom addressed three letters relating to
the missionary work among the pagans of Phoe-
nicia (/-pp. 53, 69, 145). From the first of these
we learn that Nicolaus took a very warm interest
in those missions, and had sent monks thither to
carry on the work of evangelization, in which he
had exhorted them to persevere in spite of the
opposition they met with, and the violence with
which they were treated. Chrysostom wrote in
405 warmly commending his zeal, and entreat-
ing him to send able reinforcements, and to urge
Gerontius to go to the mission field as soon as his
health would allow (Ep. 53). Towards the end
of the same year Chrysostom wrote again from
Cucusus, expressing his earnest desire to see
him, and begging him since that was impossible
to write to him as often as he could. It would
be a consolation to him, in his loneliness, sickness,
and daily terrors of an lsaurian inroad, to know
that his friend was in good health (Ep. 145).
After his flight to Arabissus in 406 he wrote
again, describing the danger he had been in with
" death every day at the door," praising him for
the interest Nicolaus continued to take in the
Phoenician missions, and begging him to write
if he had anything fresh to tell of them (Ep. 69).
[E. V.]
NICOLAUS (6), priest of Thessalonica,
deputed by pope Leo I., A.D. 444, to act as his
legate in eastern Illyria : this was at the request
of Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica (St. Leo, Ep.
vi.), and while Nicolaus received full instructions
as to regulating the ordinations of bishops and
clergy, and the general discipline, the lllyrian
metro|K>litans were directed to receive him as
the papal representative (lb., Ep. v. ap. Migne,
Fat. Lat. t. liv. 616-7 ; Ceillier, Aut. Sacr. x.
202-3. On the legatine authority, see Diet.
Chr. Antiq. ii. 967). [J. G.]
NICOMACHUS, an apostate at Lampsacus,
A.D. 250, said to have been slain by demons
(Boll. Acta SS. 15 Mai. iii. 453 a; Tillem. iii.
321). [C. H.]
NICOMAS, bishop of lconium, noted by Euse-
bius (H. E. vii. 28) as one of the leading bishops
•t the middle of the third century. [G. S.j
NICOMEDES(l), African bishop of Segermi
(Segelmi, Secermi), which is not mentioned by
NICOSTEATUS
ancient geographers (nor in Diet. Gk. & Roman
Geog.), but whose bishops occur twice or three
times as belonging to Provincia Byzacena (see
Morcelli). Its name does not occur in inscrip-
tions. He is named fourth in Syn. Carth. 2 de
pace, a.d. 251, Cyp. Ep. 57; fifth in Syn.
Carth. de Basilidc, a.d. 254, Cyp. Ep. 67;
eighth in Syn. Carth. de Bapt. H. i. Cyp. Ep.
70 ; ninth in Syn. Carth. de Bapt. iii. Sent. Epp.
[E. W. B.]
NICOMEDES (2), a monk, member of a coc-
nobitic society at Nazianzus, one of those highly
praised by Gregory Nazianzen in his poem
extolling the virtues of these solitaries (Carm.
46, p. 108). Kicomedes was a kinsman of
Gregory's, who had consecrated all his property
to religious uses, and like a second Abraham hail
devoted his two children, a son and a daughter,
to the service of God in coenobitic societies.
[E.V.]
NICOMEDIA, MARTYRS OP. Under
this head may be reckoned Anthimus, bishop
of Nicomedi.1 and a great number of his flock
who perished under suspicion of having set fire
to the Imperial palace at the very beginning
of the Diocletian persecution. Euseb. viii. 6, 13.
The acts of Anthimus are given by the Bollandist
in April t. iii. iu Greek and Latin. Cf. Rninart,
Acta Sine. p. 320, and Tillem. Mirn. v. 23.
[g. t. a]
NICOSTBATUS (1), Roman deacon (Cyp.
Ep. 31, tit. ; Ep. 32), and confessor 253. From
use of paironae (Ep. 50) probably a freedman.
Slaves sould be ordained (Can. Ap. 81), with
consent of masters followed by manumission,
but the word dominae would then probably
have been used. At the council of Elvira freed-
men were forbidden to be ordained during the
life of patrons. One of the fellow-sufferers
(Ep. 37) of MOYSE8 and Maximus, and, like the
latter and his friends, an adherent of Novatinn.
But at the time when they returned to the Cat ho-
lic church and to Cornelius (Ep. 49, 51, 52) he
left them and sailed with Novatus to Carthage to
push the Novatianist cause. (Ep. 50.) Me is
accused by Cornelius of peculation in his office,
or rather it may be transferring to what he
considered the true church funds which he had
in his keeping belonging to the church of Rome
(Ep. 50, 52). In Catnt. Vet. Pontif. (Pearson, Ann.
p. 30 u) it is said that Novatus made or caused
him to be made a bishop in Africa ; but this
seems to be a confusion, and so thinks Baluze : see
Evaristus, who with Nicostratus, Novatus,
Primus, Dionysius, composed the legation to
Carthage. [E. W. B.]
NICOSTRATUS (2), a primiscrinius at
Rome, c. 287, in the Acta of St. Sebastian, by
whom he was converted while having in his
custody SS. Marcus and Marcellianus. He after-
wards suffered martyrdom. (Boll. Acta SS. 20
Jan. ii. 268-270, §§ 24, 30, 35, 68, 76 ; Tille-
mont, iv. 518, 519, 520, 528.) [C. H.]
NICOSTRATUS (3), eastern bishop, de-
posed probably by the emperor Anastasius 1.
Along with two other bishops, Helias and
Thomas, who were in a like predicament,
he is mentioned in several letters of pope Hor-
misdas, who in 519 and 520 was very urgent
Digitized by
Google
NICOTYGHUS
with the emperor Justin I. for their restoration.
For references see Heuas. [J. G.]
NICOTYCHUS (1), a scholasticus charged
by Nilus (lib. iii. ep. 8) with being secretly-
addicted to Gentile wickedness. [C. H.]
NICOTYOHUS (2) (Nik*V»xoj), a deacon
warned by Kilns (lib. ii. ep. 142) against indulg-
ing voluptuous thoughts. [C. H.J
NIDAN, Welsh saint, son of Gwrvyw, of the
family of Coel Godebog. in the college of Ponmon,
Anglesey ; natron of Llannidan in Anglesey.
Feast Sept. 30. (Rees, IV. SSL 295; Williams,
lolo M3S. 504, 528, 5i>8 ; Myv. Arch. ii. 49.)
[J. G.]
NIDHARDUS, addressed by Winfrid c. 720
<JEp. 4 in Pat. Lot. lxxxix. 692). [C. H.]
NIEBSES. [NOB8E8E8.]
NIGIDIUS, a heretic, apinrcntly a Gnostic,
mentioned by Tertullian in his De Praetcript.
Haarti. cap. xxx. He classes bim with Her-
mogenes and several others as "still perverting
the ways of the Lord," whence we conclude he was
still alive when this was written [UtRMOOENliS]
(Hilgenfeld, KeUergtscltichte, 554). [G. T. S.]
NILAMMON (1) (NfAdnpuv), one of the
bishops ordained by Alexander bishop of Alex-
andria, and banished by the Arians to Ammoniaca
in the time of Athanasius. (Athan. Ap. de Fug.
§ 7, Hist. Ar.$n-, TiUem. viii. 697.) [C. H.]
NTLAMMON (2), a solitary, elected bishop
of Gera in Egypt, about the time of the expulsion
of Chrysostoru from Constantinople. He shrank
from the honour, however, and died when Theo-
philos archbishop of Alexandria came to ordain
hiin. (Sox. viii. 19; Boll. Acta SS. 6 Jun.
326 B ; Tillem. xi. 214, 489 ; JLe Quien, Or. Chr.
ii. 551.) [C HO
■NILAMMON (3), a scholasticus, one or
more, addressed by Isidore of Pelusium on the
preference of deeds to words (lib. i. ep. 3 in Pat.
Gr. In viii.), on the principle that religion can-
not be fairly reproached with the crimes of its
ministers (lib. iii. ep. 242), and on the terrors of
conscience (lib. v. ep. 561). Other Nilammons
addressed by Isidore
NILUS
43
(4), two persons in one letter (lib. iii. ep. 288) ;
their characters, in which as well as in name
they resembled one another, are severely cen-
sured.
(6), a presbyter (lib. iii. ep. 293), who en-
quires why those under intoxication are differ-
ently affected in appearance.
(6), a deacon (lib. iii. ep. 364) on the guilt
incurred by those who minister at the sacrament
while indulging in sin.
(7), a deacon and physician (lib. iii. 71) on
God being a God of judgment as well as of mercy.
(8), a monk (lib. ir. ep. 98) in reply to
his enquiry why, since it behoved Christ to
suffer, those wiio crucified Him should be pun-
ished.
(9), (lib. Iv. ep. 150) in answer to the
question why St. Paul should have written to
the Corinthians, "1 determined not to know
anything among you save Jesus Christ and Him
crucified." [C. H.]
NILO (NefAw), addressed by Isidore of Pelu-
sium (lib. iv. ep.l08)on St. Paul's words, " having
spoiled principalities and powers," &c. [C. H.]
NILUS (1), a proconsul and father of Panso-
phius, an Egyptian martyr during the Decian
persecution. Pnnsophius is commemorated by
Bas Men. Jan. 16. (Leo Allat. Dialrib. de Sitis
et coram Scriptis, sec. ii.) [G. T. S.j
NILUS (2), Sept. 19, an Egyptian bishop
who suffered by fire in Palestine with another
Egyptian bishop, Peleus, in the Diocletian per-
secution. (Euseb. II. E. viii. 13, Hart. Paiest.
cap. xiii.) , [G. T. S.]
NILUS (8), Nov. 12, a famous ascetic of Sinai,
who flourished at the end of the 4th century.
He was probably born in Galatin, as he speaks
of St. Plato, martyr of Ancyra as his country-
man. He rose to high position at Constantinople,
where he held the office of prefect. He married,
and had two children, when he determined
about A.D. 390 to retire to Sinai, taking with
him his son Theodulus. His epistles are very
curious, and interesting reading, detailing the
assaults made on him by demons, and replying
to the various queries of every kind, doctrinal,
disciplinary, and even political, with which he
was assailed by his admirers. GaInas, the
Gothic general, consulted liim on the Arian
controversy, but without changing his opinions
(Epp. lib. i. 70, 79, 114). Nilus boldly took
the side of St. Chrysostom when banished from
C. P. in 404, and wrote in his defence to the
emperor Arcadius (Epp. iii. 279), who in reply
solicited the prayers of Nilns to protect Con-
stantinople from impending ruin. The story
of his ordination is a curious one. The Saracens
iuraded the desert of Sinai, and took captive a
number of the solitaries, among whom were
Nilus and his son Theodulus. They dismissed
Nilus and the older men, but retained the youuo-
men, intending to offer them as sacrifices to
the Morning Star on the next day. They over-
slept themselves, however, and then, as the
propitious time was past, they sold Theodulus,
who fell into the hands of a neighbouring
bishop. There he was found by his father.
The piety of them both so struck the bishop
that he compelled them to accept ordination
at his hands. They then returned to Sinai,
and distinguished themselves by a severer piety
than they had practised previously. Nilus died
about the year 430. Theodulus is commemorated
on January 14. Fabricius, in vol. x. 1-12 of his
Bibliotheca Graeca, bestows a lengthened notice
on Nilus, and gives a list of his works, which
were first published in a complete shape in
Migne's Patrologia Graeca, t. lxxix., where his
letters will be found after the text of Leo
Allatius. The bibliography of his works is
detailed at length in Fabricius, I. c, and in
Ceillier, viii. 229. The study of his writings
throws much light on the state of monasticism,
Digitized by
Google
44
NILU8
and of Christian society in general at the end
of 4th century. Take his letters for instance : —
The two last epistles in the collection lib. iv.
Epp. 61 and 62 were quoted at the second
Jiiccue council as bearing on the Iconoclastic
controversy, both sides claiming support from
auch an eminent saint. They are, certainly,
both of them most interesting and important
documents for the illustration of church life
at that period. Olympiodorus, an Eparch, was
desirous of erecting a church which he proposed
to decorate with images of saints in the sanc-
tuary, together with hunting scenes, birds, and
animals in mosaic, and numerous crosses in the
nave, and on the floor. He designed a scheme
of decoration, iu fact, which we find carried out
some time later in the churches of Central Syria,
depicted in De Vogug's great work on the Civil
and Ecclesiastical Architecture of Syria. The
reply of Nilus is important from the purely
artistic and architectural point of view. He
condemns the mosaics as mere trifling and un-
worthy a manly Christian soul. He rejects
numerous crosses in the nave, but orders the
erection of one cross at the East end of the
sanctuary, " Inasmuch as by the Cross man was
delivered from spiritual slavery, and hope has
been shed on the nations." Good pictures from
the Old and Mew Testaments meet with his
approval. They serve as books for the on-
learned ; teach them Scripture history, and
impress on them the record of God's mercies.
The church waa to have numerous chapels.
Each chapel may have a cross erected therein.
Epistle sixty-two proves that his prohibition
of mosaics only extended to hunting scenes, and
did not probably include the images of saints.
It was written for the purpose of exalting the
fame of his favourite martyr, Plato of Ancyra,
and it conclusively proves that the invocation
of saints was then practised in the East [cf.
FlDENTiUS (2)]. It tells a story of a father
and son who were taken captive by the bar-
barians. The son invoked the help of Christ
and of St. Plato, when the latter appeared to
him mounted on horseback, and leading with
him a riderless horse which the pious captive
was compelled to mount, and was guided by the
supernatural visitor to a place of safety. The
martyr was recognized by the young mau from
the numerous pictures he had seen. Nilus did
not approve of the extraordinary forms which
monasticism was assuming. Lib. ii. Epp. 114
and 115 are addressed to one Nicander,n Sty lite,
who must have set the fashion which St. Simeon
followed. In his first epistle, Nilus tells him
his lofty position is due simply to pride, and
shall find a fulfilment of the words, " He that
exalts himself shall be abased." In the second
-epistle he charges npon him light and amorous
-conversation with women. Monastic discipline
seems indeed to have been very relaxed in his
time, as the same charges are often repeated
in his letters and works. We often find in them
the peculiar practices of the monks or of the
«arly church explained with mystical references.
Thus in lib. i. Ep. 24 he explains to one Mar-
cianus, the reason of washing the hands before
entering a church (cf. Bingham, t. ii. p. 398).
Epp. 26-31 are taken up with a defence
of the practice of ecclesiastical vigils, in reply
to the arguments and objections of one Tinio-
NILUS
theus, a sub-deacon, who adopted the views of
Vigilantius, while Nilus uses a more Christian
style of argument than that employed by
Jerome. Epp. 86 and 87 explain standing with
outstretched arms at prayer as a figure of the
Cross, with which may be compared, lib. iii.
Ep. 132 expounding standing at prayer on
Sundays as a testimony to the resurrection.
Epp. 124 — 127 contain his replies to a Jew
named Benjamin, who attacked Christianity.
In the second book we find Ep. 116 reproving
a nun, who had so far forgotten Eastern
modesty as even to teach men publicly in a
church. He refers her very briefly to the
Apostolic prohibition. In Ep. 160, he writes to
a bishop, Philo, who combined, like the ancient
Celts, the office of bishop with that of abbat,
advising him about the management of his monks.
In Ep. 245, he refers to the custom of monks,
who wore their cloaks over the right shoulders,
while seculars wore theirs over the left ; while
in Ep. 289, he writes to a chamberlain, Metho-
dius, explaining Christ's fear of death, and His
prayer against it in the Garden of Gethsemnne,
as a mere pretence, to deceive the devil and to
lead him to think Christ a mere man. Therefore
the devil brought about His crucifixion; other-
wise, had he known Him to be God, he would
not have done so. These specimens of the
matters contained in his letters will show how
very various are the subjects discussed. In
fact, there is no more copious source for illus-
trations of the life and times of the close of
the 4th century, than this correspondence which
he maintained with all classes from the emperor
downwards. Another circumstance shows the
wide influence Nilus exercised even in the
distant West. Cardinal Pitra has published in
his Spidlegium Solesmense, iii. 398, a letter,
written by Nilus to one Nemertius, expounding
the mystical meaning of the various parts of a
church — the gates, columns, bishop's throne, etc
He explains the position of the episcopal throne
in the midst of all the presbyters as representing
the Seat of the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ.
This original position of the episcopal throne,
facing westwards in the midst of the twelve
presbyters, is retained to this day in the Coptic
churches of Egypt, in the 7th-century church
of Torcelli, near Venice, and the cathedral of
Parenzo in Istria (cf. Butler's Ancient Coptic
Churches of Egypt, Oxford, 1884, p. 35 and
p. 78, where a plan may be seen illustrating
this arrangement). This epistle was found by
Pitra in a manuscript of Cambrai, belonging
to 9th century, in a Latin translation made by
Anastasius Bibliothecarius ; affording an instance
of the percolation, at that period, of Syrian
ideas into the West of Europe. The prevalence
of the anchorite life in the Celtic church of the
West may be largely due to his influence.
He wrote a treatise in twenty-seven chapters in
praise of it, entitled De Monachorum Prae-
stantid, which can be consulted in the volume
of the Patrol. Graec., already cited, col. 1061.
His treatise on prayer in one hundred and fifty-
three chapters was highly praised by Photius,
cod. 201. It is contained in the same volume,
and embraces many noble thoughts. It rises
above the narrow view of prayer, which limits
it to petition merely, and defines it as a
colloquy of the human spirit with the Divine.
Digitized by
Google
NILUS
Ceillier (viiL 205 — 230) has a good account of
the life, doctrines, and bibliography of Saint
Nilna. [G. T. S.]
NILUS (4), a scholosticus addressed by
Isidore of Pelusium (lib. r. epp. 240, 241).
(5), another person or more (lib. i. epp. 5, 56,
137, 219 ; ii. 160 ; iii. 69, 139 ; iv. 151, 158, 167,
179, 193; t. 130, 145, 157, 272, 287, 391, 438,
487, 492, 516).
(6), a deacon, who affirms that philosophy,
rhetoric, grammar, &<^, derive their ornament
and grace from Christian truth (lib. iii. ep. 65),
and comments on the passages, "If thine eye
offend thee," &c (iii. 66), and "The natural man
receireth not," &c. (iv. 127).
(7), a monk (lib. i. epp. 80, 427) on the passage
"Agree with thine adversary quickly," &c, and
on the hypocrisy of those who wear the sheep-
skin girdle, bat do not mortify the flesh.
NILUS (8). a priest addressed by Nilus
(3) (lib. iii. epp. 236, 256) on the value of
prayer and on the passage St. John v. 7 ; a monk
(lib. iii. epp. 155, 255) on the value of prayer
and on Ps. zlii. 3 ; a scholasticus (lib. iii. ep.
153) on the spiritual conflict. Another person
(lib. iii. ep. 170) on divine chastisements.
[C. H.]
NILUS (9), bishop of Orthosias in Phoenicia,
ordained by Leon ti us bishop of Tripolis, having
been trained in the monastery of St. Euthymius
in Palestine (Vit. Euthym. § 129, in Coteler.
Ecct. Or. Monum. ii. 310; Le Quien, ii. 826).
[C. H.]
NIMTMIA, Aug. 12, martyr at Augsburg,
with Hilaria, mother of St. Afro, and several
other women. (Mart. Us., Adon.) [Hilaria (1).]
[G. T.S.]
NINIAN (Nixias, Ninas, Ninas, Kinot,
Ninyas, Ntnia, Nynyane, Din an, Rikoan,
rUSGEN"), bishop and confessor, commemorated
Sept. 16. The general facts of his life and work
present comparatively few points for dispute,
owing perhaps to there being but one tradition,
and that not materially departed from.
The primary authority is Bede (E. H. iii. 4),
who makes however only an incidental allusion
to St. Ninian in connection with St. Columbs, yet
touches therein the chief points embodied in the
later Life — bis converting the southern Picts a
long time before St. Columba's day (multo ante
tempore), his being " de natione Brittonum," but
instructed in the Christian faith and mysteries
at Rome ; his friendship with St. Martin of Tours,
in whose honour he dedicated his episcopal see
and church at Candida Cass in the province of
the Bernicii, and his building the church there of
stone " insolito Brittonibus more" (if. II. B. 176).
This is repeated in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
a.d. 565 (lb. 303). Ailred's Vita S. Niniani
appears to be little more than an expansion of
these details, but in how far he, in the 12th cen-
tury, had or had not authentic evidence of an
earlier date to assist him in the compilation we
hare no means of knowing, beyond this that he
specially refers to Bede's information and also to
NINIAN
45
a "liber de vita et miraculis ejus, barbario
(barbarice) scriptus," but of its value we are
ignorant. The chief life is Vita Niniani Pict-iram
Australium apoatoii, auctore Ailredo Jieivallensi,
first printed by Pinkerton ( Vit. Ant. SS. 1 sq. ed.
1 789), and reprinted with translation and notes,
by Bp. Forbes (Historians of Scotland, vol. v.
1874). Capgrave (Nov. Leg. Angl. f. 241-3)
has De Nmiano Ep. et Conf. which appears to
be taken from or based upon a Life in the Bur-
gundian Library at Brussels ; this is partly
translated and commented upon by Creasy (Ch.
Hist. Brit. 154, 161, 184). In Bret. Aberdon.
(Prop. SS. p. Est. ff. 107 sq.) there are 9 lections
with antiphons, hymns, Sic. The Scotch
annalists have been mindful of St. Ninian, and
Ussher (wks. vi. 200 sq.) has collected their
notices, but they are of no special value. The
Bollandists (Acta S3. 16 Sept. v. 318-28) print
no Life, but give a learned commentarius his-
torico-criticus by Stickenus, in which most of
the points in his life are considered. (See further
Hardy, Detcript. Cat. i. 44 sq. 853 ; Bp. Forbes,
Lings of SS. Kent and Nin. Introd. ; Grub, Eccl.
Hist. Scot. i. c. 2 et nl. ; Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 3,
444 ; Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. i. 14, 35 ;
Pinkerton, Enquiry, ii. 263 sq. ; Pryce, Ana.
Brit. Ch. 104 sq.)
Ailred's Life of S. Ninian is of the usual un-
historic character, fuller of moralisings than of
facts, and having only one fixed point to suggest
a date. St. Ninian was of royal birth and be-
longed to the valley of the Solway ; his father
was probably a regulus in the Cumbrian king-
dom, and, being a Christian, had his son early en-
grafted into the church by baptism. The youth
soon manifested a desire to visit Rome, and cross-
ing over to the Continent set out on a pilgrimage
to the holy city, which he appears to have
reached in the time of pope Damasus (a.d. 366 -
384), perhaps in A.D. 370. After devoting
several years (pluribus annis) there in study of
the Scriptures and holy learning, he was raised
to the episcopate, A.D. 394, by the pope himself,
probably Siricius (a.d. 385-399), and sent as
bishop to the western part of Britain, where the
Gospel was unknown, corrupted, or misrepre-
sented by the teachers. Calling on St. Martin
•t Tours and receiving from him masons to build
churches according to the Roman method, he
returned to his native shores and bnilt his church
at Witerno, now Whithern in Wigtonshire, but
whether it was near the site of the later abbey
or on the island near the shore is uncertain. As
he was building the church when the news
reached him of St. Martin's death (a.d. 397),
in whose honour he was careful to dedicate the
church itself, this at the latest must have been
in the spring of 398. Farther than this we
have no landmarks for ascertaining his dates.
The chief field of his missionary labours was
in the central district of the east of Scotland
among those barbarians who had defied the
Roman power in the days of Agricola, and who
were separated off from the Roman province of
Valentia by the rampart of Antoninus ; but the
veneration in which his name is held i* shown
by his dedications being found over all Scotland.
(For dedications see Bp. Forbes, Kats. 424.)
His monastic school, known by various uames
as Magnum Monasterium, Monasterium Uosna-
tense, Alba, and Candida Casa, was famous
Digitized by
Google
46
NIXIAN
through Cumbria and Ireland, and was one of
the chief scats of early Christian learning to
which the Welsh and Irish saiuts resorted, till
both school and see were destroyed by the irrnp-
tions of the Britons and Saxons. The see was
revived for a time in the 8th century, under
Saxon influence from York (Ha<ldan and Stubbs,
Caunc. ii. pt. i. 7-8, 56 sq. ; Stubbs, Reg. Sac.
Any. 184 et al.), to be again restored in the
12th cent, by King Darid 1. of Scotland. The
date usually assigned for his death, though on no
definite data, is Sept. 16 A.D. 432, and Bede
(E. H. iii. c. 4) relates that he was buried in his
church at Candida Casa, which in the middle
ages became a much frequented place of pilgrim-
age. (See Chalmers, Caled. iii. 42.) At the
same time it must be noted that an Irish tra-
dition (O'Conor, Rer. Mb. Scrip, iv. 86 ; Todd, B.
of Hymns, i. 100 sq. ; Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 3, 46)
carries him to Ireland as Honenn, &c, who
founded a church at Cluain-Conaire in the north
of Oi-Faelain, and died there. But this is prob-
ably fictitious. Dempster <ff. E. Scot. ii. 502)
ascribes to him Meditationes Psalterii and De
Sententiis Sanctorum, while Tanner (Bibl. 549),
from Leland, mentions Eulogvim temporis, all
probably fictitious. The Clog-rinny or Bell of
St. Ringan, of rude workmanship, is in the
Antiquarian Museum, Edinburgh, and his cave
is still pointed out on the sea-shore in the
parish of Glasserton, Wi?tonshire. His feast is
Sept. 16th.
The era embraced in the life of St. Ninian
(A.D. 360-432 ?) is a memorable epoch in the
history of the Western church. While in the
East were living and suffering for the faith the
great St. Basil of Caesarea, the Gregories, and
St. Chrysostom, there were no less saints in the
West moulding the church's teaching and destiny,
St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. And
still further west St. Martin was consolidating
at Tours the monastic system which was to prove
so effectual in christianising Britain [Monastic
Bishop, Diet. Ch, Ant. ii. 1270]. But it was a
time of barbarous warfare, and the Roman em-
pire was falling to pieces before the inroads of
the Goths from the north and east. Rome re-
quired her forces to protect, if possible, her own
citadel, and the colonies were left to shift for
themselves. The last of the legionaries were
withdrawn from Britain in A.D. 410, while St.
Ninian was preaching among the southern Picts,
and for a time all intercourse was practically
broken off with Rome. Bnt up to this time
Britain had formed part of the empire, and the
Toad was open for soldier or pilgrim to the
capital, and the youthful Briton from the Sol-
way may easily have found his way to the holy
city and been a witness of the wretched scenes
which distinguished the episcopate of Damasus.
Coming from Rome through theGallican church
and imbibing the views of his patron St. Martin,
he would impress upon the new church in Britain
the mark of a peculiarly Western character, and
the first fruits of his mission would appear in
the monastic establishment at Whithern, but of
other foundation time or tradition has left no
trace. Where tho imperial legions had failed to
maintain their footing, this pioneer of the Gospel
entered to establish the kingdom of peace, and
laboured for upwards of thirty years in the
centre and south-west of what is now Sootland.
NISTHEROUS
He died in peace, and, according to tradition, his
work was taken up by St. Palladius, St. Ternan,
St. Servanus, St. Kentigern, and other Scotch
saints, but St. Ninian remains the first and
greatest of the ancient British missionaries of
whom we hare clear and distinct tradition.
[J. G.]
NINNIDH (NENimra, Nenotdh, Nennt-
SIU8, Nainkidr), surnamed Saebhrnisc or Laobh-
dhearc, of InUmacsaint, co. Fermanagh, in Loch
Erne, bishop, commemorated Jan. 18 ; belongs to
the Ath centurv, but his legend is doubtful, {if.
Doneg. 23 ; Colgan, Acta SS. Ill sq. ; O'Hnnlon,
Ir. S3, i. 819 sq. ; Lanigan, E. H. Ir. i. 451 ; ii.
233. For the architectural remains at Inismac-
saint, and the rudely executed ancient cross of
St. Nenn, see O'Hanlon ut supr. and Proc. Roy.
Ir. Acad. vii. 304.) [J. G.]
NINNOOA. [Nenhoca.]
NINUS (Cyp. Ep. 56), in the Decian perse-
cution with Floras and Clemeutianus endured
the question before local magistrates, but broke
down under more protracted torture before the
proconsul. Their case was brought by Superius
before six bishops at Capsa, who referred it to
Cyprian and he to the council. He was in-
clined to restore them after three years of
penance, counted from Feb. A.D. 250 to April
252. [E. W. B.]
NIOBITES, a sub-division of the Mooophy-
site party, who derived their name from a
Niobes, an Alexandrian professor. They differed
from the catholics only in the use of language.
They flourished in cent. vii. (Hefele's Councils,
sec. 208.) * [G. T. S. ]
KISTHEBOUS (N«r9e»»os), two fathers (if
not the same) of the Egyptian desert, one of
whom is designated i p4yas, and called the friend
of Antony, and the other a coenobite ; but they
may be the same person. The former gave
more practical advice to a man who ques-
tioned him than monks often imparted. He
was asked to point out the best course of
action a man should follow, to promote God's
glory. He replied that in God's sight all good
actions are equally acceptable, all virtues stand
on a level. Abraham was noted for hospitality,
Elijah for retirement, David for humility, yet
God accepted all equally. "Choose then the
coarse your spirit inclines towards, and guard
your heart," was his conclusion. The second
Nistherous was supposed to possess miraculous
powers. A famous anchorite of that day,
Poemen or Pastor, brother of Nub or Annph
(Nub] [Poemen], asked him how he obtained
such spiritual power. Nistherous replied that
when he entered on the monastic life, he said to
his soul, "Tu et Asinus estis unum," and then
acted accordingly. An ass when beaten replies
not ; so had he acted till he attained to the
state depicted by the Psalmist (Ixxiii. 21, 22),
"so foolish was I, and ignorant: even as it were
a beast before thee ; nevertheless I am always
by thee." (Cotelerii Monum. Qraec Eccles. i.
575, 577.) [G. T. S.]
In Rosweyd's Vita* Patrum these fathers
Digitized by
Google
NITIGISIUS
occur under the forms Misteron and Nesteron
(y. 12, 30 ; vii. 12, 42), one of them being
Misteron major, who answers to the 6 fiiyas.
One of them, apparently the coenobite, is met
with again in Cassian, who visited him in 395.
Two of the Conferences, the 14th and 15th,
are held with him, the subjects being De
SpiriUdi Scientia and De Charinmatibus Divinie.
He and his associates, Chaeremon and Joseph, are
"senes tres . . . anachoretae antiquissimi " [JOSE-
PHU3 (27)] (Cassian, Coll. xiv., it. ap. Migne,
Pat. Lot. t. xlix. col. 953 sq. ; Tillemont, H. E.
x.10,439, 442; xiv. 162, 163 ;xv. 154, 155;
CeUlier, Aid. Sacr. rut 147.) [J. G.]
NITIGISITJS (NrriGB, Niqesius), bishop of
Logo (561-585), to whom St. Martin bishop of
Braga dedicated his collection of canons (Patr.
Lot. exxx. 575). He heads the subscriptions at
the synod of Logo in 572 (Mansi, ix. 841). For
a fuller account of this prelate, see Florez. Sep.
Sag. xL 66. [Martinus (2), p. 847 a.]
[C.H.]
NTTRIA, MONASTERIES OP. This
district, which has contributed to the British
Museum some of its most important manuscript
treasures, is a desert valley situated between 30
and 31 degrees both of latitude and longitude,
about thirty-five' miles to the left of the most
western branch of the Mile. The name of Nitria
(Strabo, Geogr. xriii. i. 23, ed. Paris, 1858)
belongs properly to the northern part of the
valley, where the famous Matron lakes are situ-
ated ; the southern part is more correctly the
Valley of Scithis or Scete. It is also called the
Desert, or Valley, of Macarius, from the convent
dedicated to one of the three saints who bore
that name. The Mohammedans commonly call
the whole valley Wadi Habib, after one of their
own saints, one of the Prophet's companions, who
retired hither about the end of the 7th century.
This valley has been the resort of ascetics from
the earliest times ; the Therapeutae of Philo's day
may have set the example (Meander, H. E. i.
84). Possibly, as Jerome seems to hint (ad
Eustoch.), from some fancied virtues of purifica-
tion in the lakes themselves, in allusion to Jere-
miah xi. 22 : " Oppidum Domini Mitriam, in quo
purissimo virtutum nitro sordes lavantur quo-
tidie plurimorum." Bingham (Antiquit. lib. viii.
cap. i. sec 4) has ably discussed the origin of
monasticism, pointing out that while ascetic
lives have been led from the very beginning of
Christianity, monasticism took its rise in Egypt
after the Decian persecution, when men fled to
the neighbouring deserts for safety, where,
finding not only a safe retreat, but also more
time and liberty to exercise themselves in acts
of piety and contemplation, they remained there
when the danger had passed. The first person
to organize the ascetics of Mitria was Saint
Amnion [Ammox], who flourished under Con-
stantino, and was a friend of Athanasius. He
died about A.D. 345 (Ceill. iv. 314). He was
succeeded by Macarius, who instituted the first
community in that part of the valley which to
this day bears his name. [Macarius (17).] The
tame of this place rapidly extended Ascetics
thronged to it in thousands. Men of high
position weary of the world, like Ausonius,
NITBIA, MONASTERIES OF 47
the preceptor of Arcadins and Honorius,
retired hither. Rufinus. who visited Mitria
about the year 372, mentions some fifty con-
vents (cf. Soz. H. E. vi. 31), and Palladius,
who iu 390 passed twelve months here, reckons
the devotees at five thousand (Pallad. Hist.
Lausiac. cap. vii. ; Ceill. vii. 484). Jerome also
visited them about the same time, and gives us
numerous details of their life (cf. Epp. ad
Eustoch., ad Rustic). The influence of Mitria
upon Western Europe was very great. Atha-
nasius brought with him to Rome upon his
second exile Ammon, a monk of Nitria; not,
however, the same as the above-mentioned
Ammon. From that time (A.D. 340) the intro-
duction of the monastic life into Italy must be
dated. [Athanasius, Vol. I. p. 188 ; cf. Hieron.
Ep. ad Princip. Epitaph. Marccllae ; Baron. An.
340, n. 7.] Even the very discipline of Western
monasticism was modelled upon that of Mitria,
as Cassianus introduced the knowledge of it into
Gaul by his treatises, De Institutis Senuntian-
tittm, and the CoUationes Patrvm in &:ithico
Eremo Commorantium, the latter of which St.
Benedict ordered to be read daily by his dis-
ciples. [Cassianus.] This connexion between
Gaul and Mitria was maintained during the 4th
century, as we see from the conclusion of
Jerome's treatise against Vigilantius, where he
mentions the haste of the Gallic monk, Sisinnius.
" who is about to proceed to Egypt for the relief
of the saints," as an excuse for the brevity of his
treatise. Sisinnius was the messenger of Em-
peri us of Toulouse, liiparius, and Desiderius, and
carried their alms to the ascetics of Egypt (cf.
Hieron. Prolog, in Zachar.). [Exupkrius.]
For other instances of this Eastern and Syrian
connexion with southern Gaul, cf. Boeckh. Corp.
Insariptt. Grace. 9886, 9891-93 ; Le Blant,
Chre~t. Insariptt. en Gaule, i. p. 324. These inscrip-
tions seem to relate to a regular Syrian colony
settled at Aries and Vienne, about 450. From
the above-named works of Cassianus, together
with the Sistoria Lausiaca of Palladius, the
Monumenta of Cotelerius, and Snlpicius Seve-
ros, Dialogue I., the curious reader will gain
the most ample details of the life, conversation,
discipline, and religious observances of the
Mitrian communities in the 4th and 5th centuries
(Ceill. vii. 486; Du Pin, H. E. i. 425, ed. Dub-
lin, 1723). [Palladius.] Towards the conclu-
sion of the 4th century they were torn with
religious controversy. On the one hand, a sec-
tion of the Mitrian monks, led by Pathomius,
embraced anthropomorphism [Anthropomor-
phitae], while, on the other hand, the vast
majority of them followed the opinions of
Origen, for which they were violently perse-
cuted, even to death, by Theophilus, the patri-
arch of Alexandria (A.D. 401), and roundly
denounced by Jerome. (Cf. Correspondence be-
tween Jerome and Theophilus among Hieron.
Epp. ; Sulpic Sever. /. c. ; Meander, H. E.
iv. 464-66.) [Theophilus, Chrysostom.]
This Origenistic tendency reproduced itself in
Cassianus and his followers in Gaul (Milman,
Hist, of Lot. Christ, t. i. 165-170, ed. 1867). It
also prepared the way for that Monophysitc
view of our Lord's person, which the Mitrian
monks, in common with the whole Egyptian
church, maintained from the 5th century
onwards.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
48 NITRIA, MONASTERIES OP
NITRIA, MONASTERIES OP
Joannes Moschus tells us that in his time —
the beginning of the 7th century— the Nitrian
monks numbered three thousand fire hundred,
and gives us interesting details of the inner life
of the monasteries at that time in his works, as
published by Cotelerius in Hon. Eccles. Grate.,
and in the Vitae Patr. or Hat. Eremit. in
Migne's Patr. Lot. lxxiii., lxxiv., wherein will be
found many of the ancient works already
referred to in this article. After the invasion
of the Saracens we principally depend upon the
Arab historians for information, the chief of
them being al-Makrizi, who died a.d. 1441.
His History of the Copts was published with a
German translation by Wiistenfeld, at Gttttingen,
in the Abhandlung. der Konigl. Gcseltsch. der
Wissensch. Bd. iii. and separately at the same
place in 1845. The writings of Severus, bishop
of Ashrounin, whose works form the founda-
tion of Renaudot's Hist. Pat. Alex., and of
Georgius al-Makim (a.d. 1273), another Chris-
tian writer, also help to throw light on their
mediaeval history. It is, however, with the
history of the Convent of St. Mary Deipara, or
of St. Suriani, as it is often called in modern
works, that we must now deal. It is one of the
four remaining out of the fifty or sixty which
existed twelve hundred years ago. It is said
to have been founded by a holy man named
Honnes, whose tree is still shewn a conple of miles
south of the convent. It was originally con-
nected with the Syrian Monophysites, perhaps in
some such way as to this day different nations
are represented among the religious houses on
Mount Athos. We find fairly conclusive evi-
dence in the history of John of Ephesns that
this Syrian monastery existed as such in his
time— the middle of the 6th century — as we are
told how that three bishops came to Nitria, and,
by force, compelled the Syrian Theodore, who
then presided over a monastery there, to accept
the patriarchate of Alexandria (John of Eph.
H. E. trans, by R. P. Smith, p. 262). This
Syrian monastery seems ever to have been the
most literary of the societies, as the school of
Edessa, with which it was probably connected,
was the most active and speculative of its age.
They had strict rules for their library, and the
members seem to have been bound to add a
volume each to its stores, which were still
further enlarged by gifts from private families
in Syria, which practice continued so late as the
11th cent., as we learn from inscriptions still
existing on the MSS. It was fortunate, too, in
its abbat, when the ages of literary darkness
were settling down over the West. A certain
Moses entered the convent A.D. 907, bringing
with him the book of Ecclesiasticus as a present
from the family of Abu '1-Bashar Abdu 'ltah of
Tagrit (Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS., No. cliv.).
He was abbat in 927, in which year he was sent
to Bagdad to procure from the caliph the remis-
sion of the poll-tax demanded from the monks.
Having been successful in this, he journeyed
through Mesopotamia and Syria, and returned in
932, bringing with him 230 volumes, which can
be still recognised. In the same age Ephraim,
or Abraham, patriarch of Alexandria A.D. 977-81,
was a liberal donor to its library ; and even as
late as the beginning of the 16th century the
abbat Severus tried to do something similar, but
evil days of ignorance had come, when even the
preservation of the books was difficult. They
were repaired and bound in 1194, 1222, 1493,
and in 1624, when the library contained 403
volumes ; but these successive reparations were
the cause of the destruction of several of the
most ancient and valuable MSS., especially
those of classical authors. Some of them have-
been restored as palimpsests. We now come to-
the history of the convent and its library in later
times. The first modern notice of the Nitrian
MSS. which we discover is in Gassend's Life of
X. C. F. de Peiresc, p. 269, Paris, 1641, where
we are told that a Franciscan monk, Egidius
Loehiensis, informed that scholar of their
existence in the year 1633. Some persons in
Europe must have previously known of them, as
we find several of them in libraries prior to that
date, and specially two splendid ones in the
Ambrosian Library at Milan. Visits in search of
MSS. have been paid to Nitria by the following
persons — by Robert Huntington, A.D. 1678, then
chaplain at Aleppo, and afterwards provost of
Trinity College, Dublin, and bishop of Raphoe,
whose fine collection of oriental manuscripts now
adorns the Bodleian Library (Huntingtoni Epp.
ed. Smith, 1704, Ep. xxxix.) ; by the Assemanis,
Elias and his cousin Joseph Simon, in 1707,
1715, and 1716, an account of whose mission
will be found in their Biblioth. Oriental, t. i.
praef. sec. vii. ; by the Jesuit Claude Sicard ia
Dec. 1712, and again with J. S. Assem. in 1716 ;
by Gen. Andreossy in 1799 (Mfm. sur la Valle'e
des Lacs de Natron) ; by Lord Prudhoe in 1828 j
by Hon. R. Curzon in 1837 (Monasteries of tha-
Levant); and by Archdeacon Tattam in 1838,
who went looking for MSS., serviceable towards-
a Coptic edition of the Bible. He on that occa-
sion secured fifty Syriac MSS., which included
the Theophania of Eusebius, which Dr. S. Lee
forthwith edited and published a.d. 1842. The
interest excited by this discovery led to the
despatch of Mr. Tattam a second time in
1842, who secured a further consignment of
two hundred volumes, which arrived at the
British Museum March 1, 1843. It was now
thought that all the treasures of Nitria were ex-
hausted, and Cureton wrote his celebrated
article in the Quarterly Jteview of Dec. 1845-
(vol. lxxvii.), under this impression; but the
monks had been too long trading on them to part
with all at once, notwithstanding the most
solemn bargains. In 1844 Tischcndorf paid
them a visit, and got some more. And now
the spirit of deception spread from the monks to-
others. Auguste Pacho, a native of Egypt, was
sent from London in 1847 to search for more
MSS. He obtained several, but only handed
over a part of them to the English authorities ia
November of that year. He obtained others,
which he disposed of, partly to the Museum ia
1851, and partly to the Imperial Library of St.
Petersburg in 1852. Even since 1870 rumours-
have been current of large quantities of MSS.
being still for sale in Cairo or Alexandria, and
one at least of importance has been secured by
the famous Egyptologist, Dr. Brugsch, and sold
to the Prussian Government. The full value of
these MSS. has scarcely been yet ascertained. They
have had, indeed, one important indirect result
already in the vast development of Syriac studies-
within the last thirty years. The specimens
which have been as yet translated by Lee,
Digitized by
Google
NIVAEDUS, ST.
Cureton, Smith, and others, such as the Festal
Epistles of Athanasius, the Theophania of
Lusebius, and the Ecclesiastical History of John
bishop of Ephesus, throw much light on
cent, iv.-vi. That of the Ephesian bishop is
specially valuable as treating history from the
standpoint of a Monophysite, for in general all
the writings of heretics, real or reputed, have
been destroyed. Canon Cnreton's Terdict upon
them is this : — "The contents of these MSS. are
most important. The copies of the Holy Scrip-
tures are some of the oldest in existence, and the
translations of the works of the great fathers of
the church are most valuable. Moreover, this
collection contains several really important
works, of which the Greek copies have been long
since lost, and are now only known to us either
by their titles, or by being short extracts pre-
served by other writers. Besides, there are
many original works of Syriac authors." For
an exhaustive account of the whole collection in
its different aspects, its biblical, historical, philo-
sophic, and scientific value, the handwriting of
the MSS., the binding, and the very materials
thereof, the instruments used for writing, see
the preface prefixed to Wright's Catalogue of
&friac MSS. in Brit. Mas. The catalogue itself,
which has been the work of many years, gives
an analysis of each MS., and is the best substi-
tute for those translations which may alter very
ranch oar views of early ecclesiastical history.
Among them we may, in conclusion, notice that
Dr. Wright has discovered a work often quoted
in this Dictionary, viz. the most ancient Chris-
tian martyrology. Its date Wright fixes for a
few years prior to 412, some time at the close
«f the 4th century. He published it in the
Journal of Sac. Liter, t. viii. ed. Cowper, pp.
43, 423, January, 1866. In addition to the
articles of Canon Cureton and Dr. Wright's pre-
&ce, already quoted, and to which this article
•wes much, the reader may consult Cureton's
prefaces to the Syriac Gospels and to the Festal
Epistles of St. Athanasius ; Hahn's Fathers of
tie Desert, ed. Dalgairns ; and for an account of
the present state cf Nitria Sir Gardner Wilkin-
son's Modern Egypt and Thebes, t. i. pp. 382-399.
[G. T.S.]
NTVARDUS (Nivo), ST., 25th archbishop
of Bheims, was a brother of St. Gondebertns
the martyr, and according to some of royal
Mood (tee Boll. Acta SS. Sept. i. 268 for his
family). He had lived in the court of Austrasia
before his accession to the episcopate (circ. A.D.
650). The church of Rheims he found in an
impoverished condition which he set himself to
remedy. His influence at court enabled him to
obtain various privileges, and by purchasing
here and exchanging there he extended and
consolidated the estates (cf. Flodoardus, Hist.
Ex/. Rem. ii. 7, Migne, Patr. Lat. exxxv. 107-
8 ; Boll. Aid. p. 270). With the consent of the
bishops assembled at a council of Nantes (circ
a.d. 658), he rebuilt the ruined monastery of
Altumviliare (Hautvilliers) on the Marne, near
Epernar, endowed it and granted it privileges,
sad made St. Bercharius abbat (see Gall. Christ.
it- 251, and Boll. p. 272 for this monastery ; and
BolL Acta SS. Oct. vii. 993, seqq. for Ber-
caarias). He also gave a church to the monas-
tery of St. Basolus (Saint-Basle) at Verzy (see
CUBIST. BIOGK. — VOI. IV.
NOETUS
49
Gall. Christ, ix. 195). After a long episcopate,
extending apparently over a great part of the
reigns of Clovis II., Clotaire III., and Childeric II.
(a.d. 638-73), he died at Hautvilliers, and was
either bnried there, according to his 9th century
biographer, Almannns, (Boll. Acta SS. Sept. i.
283), or carried to Rheims and buried in the
church of St. Remigius according to Flodoard
(ibid.y. He is commemorated Sept. 1. For the
history of his relics see Boll. ibid. p. 276-7.
[S. A. B.]
NIZIEB, ST. [Nicetius (4).]
NOBILIUS, a bishop to whom St. Augustine
wrote, excusing himself on the score of health
and winter season from accepting an invitation
to be present at the dedication of a new building,
perhaps a church. (Ang. Ep. 269 al. 251.)
[H. W. P.]
NOCHAITAB, an heretical sect mentioned
by Hippolytus, without explanation of their
tenets (fief, viii. 20). * [G. 8.]
NOETUS, a native of Smyrna according
%o Hippolytus, but of Ephesus according to
Epiphanius (llaer. 57), whose narrative is, how-
ever, in other respects wholly derived from
Hippolytus ; on this point, therefore, the tran-
scriber probably made a mistake. He came from
Asia Minor at any rate, whence Praxeas, some
years before, had imported the same views as
he taught. Hippolytus traces the origin of the
Patripassian heresy at. Rome to Noetus, who, in
his opinion, derived it from the philosophy of
Heraclitus. Hippolytus expounds this at length
in the Refutation, lib. ix. cap. 3-5, cf. x. 23.
Noetus had a brother who assisted in his teach-
ing, and whom he identified with Aaron, while
claiming himself to be Moses. He came to
Rome, where he converted Epigonus and Cleo-
menes. He was summoned before the council
of Roman presbyters, and interrogated about
his doctrines. He denied at first that he had
taught that " Christ was the Father, and that
the Father was born and suffered and died,"
but his adherents increasing in number, he
acknowledged before the same council, when
summoned a second time, that he had taught
the views attributed to him. " The blessed
presbyters called him again before them and
examined him. But he stood out against them,
saying, What evil am I doing in glorifying one
God ? And the presbyters replied to him, We
too know in truth one God, we know Christ, we
know that the Son suffered even as He suffered,
and died even as He died, and rose again on the
third day, and is at the right hand of the Father,
and Cometh to judge the living and the dead;
and these things which we have learned we
allege.' Then after examining him they expelled
him from the church. And he was carried to
such a pitch of pride, that he established a
school." Cf. Routh's Reliq. Sac t. iv. 243-248.
As to the date of Noetus, Hippolytus tells us
" he lived not long ago," in the opening words of
his treatise against that heretic. Drs. Lipsius
and Salmon think that this very treatise was
used by Tertullian in his tract against Praxeas
(Hippolytus Romanus in t. iii. p. 95 of this
dictionary) while Hilgenfeld and Hamack date
Tertullian's work between A.D. 206 and 210.
E
Digitized by
Google
60
NOMUS
NONNA
This would throw the treatise of Hippolytus
back to A.D. 205, or thereabouts. From its lan-
guage and tone, we would conclude that Noetus
was then dead, a view which Epiphanius (Haer.
57, cap. 1) expressly confirms, saying that he
and his brother both died soon after their excom-
munication, and were bnried without Christian
rites. The period of hi* teaching at Rome must
then hare been some few years previous to the
year 205. Bnt the Refutation of Heresies gives
us a farther note of time. In ix. 2, Hippolytns
tells us that it was when Zephyrinus was mana-
ging the affairs of the church that the school of
Noetus was firmly established at Rome, and that
Zephyrinus connived at its establishment
through bribes. It is not possible, however,
to approximate more closely to. the precise
date, than to fix his excommunication and death
about the year 200. Hippolytus (Refut. x. 23)
tells us that a portion of the Montanists adopted
the views of Noetus. He seems to have written
some works, from which Hippolytus often
quotes. The original authority for Noetus is of
course Hippolytus, the precise references to
which we have already given; Cf. the Libel I us
Synodicus 20, concerning a pretended synod
under Victor, which excommunicated Noetus and
Sabellius. Die Quellm dcr aeltesten JCetzerije-
schichte Ton R. A. Lipsius, Leipzig, 1875, pp.
179-190. Haruack in, Herzog, Real-Encyclop.
s.v. Mtmnrchianismiis. Hilgenfeld's Ketzerge-
schickte, p. 616 [Pbaxeas] [Epioonus] ("Cleo-
MENES]. [G. T. S.]
NOMUS, one of the leading personages at
Constantinople in the latter years of Theodosius
II., with whom he was all-powerful — to tjjj
oiitavpivn's tv x'P"^" tx uv ^pdyiiara (Labbe,
Condi, iv. 407). Nomus filled in succession all
the highest offices in the state. In 443 he was
"magister officiorum " (Cod. Thevd. nov. p. 14,
1) ; consul in 445 ; patrician in 449, the year
of the infamous " Latrocinium." Nomus was
the confidential friend of Chrysaphius the
eunuch and shared with him the government of
the emperor and the empire. Through their
means Dioscorus of Alexandria and the Euty-
chian doctrines he supported were brought into
favour with the court, while the adherents of
the orthodox faith, and especially Theodoret,
against whom Dioscorus had a personal pique,
were systematically depressed. Through his
influence the feeble Theodosius was induced to
publish a decree in 448 confining Theodoret to
the limits of his diocese. The interesting series
of letters, to the principal men of the empire,
in which Theodoret, while observing the man-
date, protested against its arbitrary character,
contains several addressed to Nomus. He had
had a short interview with the great man, which
was curtailed by the serious illness, and its
renewal prevented by the death, of a member of
the family of Nomus. This gave rise to a short
courteous letter of respectful sympathy (Theod.
Ep. 58), followed by one of considerable length
(Ep. 81), in which, after expressing his surprise
that neither of his two former letters hod re-
ceived any answer, he proceeds to defend him-
self from the charges which hod been the osten-
sible ground of the emperor's decree, and to
recount the services he had rendered to the
church during a quarter of a century, which
had merited far different treatment, and close*
with the earnest entreaty that as so much
power rested in his hands, Nomus would take
the trouble of acquainting himself with the
real evils of the church, and use his authority to
arrest them. Nomus still maintaining his
former silence, Theodoret wrote again (Ep. 96),
saying that he was quite unaware how he could
have given him offence, and requesting him to
tell him what his cause of complaint against
him was, and thus give him an opportunity ot
clearing himself. With the death of Theodosius
and the accession of Marcian and Pulchcria,
Nomus's power sensibly waned. He took, how-
ever, a leading position as a high state official at
the council of Chalcedon (Labbe, iv. 77, 475,
&c). During the session of this council a libel
or petition against him was presented by a
nephew of Cyril, Athanasius by name, a presby-
ter of Alexandria, who had come to Constan-
tinople to seek redress for the ill-usage he and
his family had sustained from Dioscorus, accus-
ing Nomus of acts of violence and extortion by
which he and his relatives had been reduced to
beggary, and his brother had died of distress.
(Labbe, iv. 407-410). [E. V.]
NONNA (1), the mother of Gregory Nazi-
anzen. She was a lady of good birth, the
child of Christian parents, Philtatius and Gor-
gonia, brought up in the practice of the Chris-
tian virtues, of which she was so admirable an
example. Her son describes in glowing terms
the holiness of her life and the beautiful con-
formity of all her actions to the highest stan-
dards of Christian excellence. To her example,
aided by her prayers, he ascribes the conversion
of his father from the strange medley of pagan-
ism and Christianity which formed the tenets
of the Hypsistarian sect, to which by birth
he belonged (Greg. Naz. Orat. 11, 19 ; farm. 1,
2). We know of two other children of the
marriage besides Gregory ; a sister named
Gorgonis, probably older than himself, and a
brother named Caesarius. It is unnecessary to-
repeat what has been already said of the in-
fluence of the pious example and instructions of
such a mother in forming the character of the
son whom she regarded as given in answer to
her prayers, and whom before his birth she
devoted to the service of God [Gbegobius
Nazianzekcs, ii. p. 742, col. 2], Nonna's life
was quiet and uneventful, though not devoid of
the domestic sorrows which necessarily fail to
the lot of the mother of a family (Orat. 19,
p. 292). Her health was usually very robust,
but in 371 the year preceding her son's reluc-
tant elevation to the episcopate as bishop of
Sasima, she suffered from a severe illness which
caused the postponement of an intended visit of
her son's to his friend Basil (Greg. Naz. Ep. 4).
But on arriving at her house he found the crisis
of her disorder passed, her recovery being
ascribed by her to a vision, in which she had
been fed by her son wiih cakes of bread marked
with a cross, and blessed by him (Greg. Naz.
Orat. 9, p. 306). Three years later, 374, the
elder Gregory died, and bis widow only survived
him a very short time. The date of ber death
is placed with great probability on Aug. 5 (on
which day Nonna is commemorated both by the
Greek and Latin churches), in the year 374 {Orat.
Digitized by
Google
NONNA
19, p. S15 ; Cart*. 1, p. 9). (TiUcmont, Mem.
Ecdis. torn. iz. pp. 309-311; 817, 318, 322,
385, 397.) * [E. V.]
NONNA (2), one of the three daughters of
Gorgonia, the sister of Gregory Nazianzen,
called after her maternal grandmother, whose
virtues she appears to have been very far from
imitating, as she and her sister Eugenia are spoken
of by Gregory Nazianzen in his will as un-
deserving of notice from their reprehensible life.
This may however mean no more than that,
having been devoted to a life of virginity by
their mother (Greg. Naz. Grat. 11, p. 180), they
declined to accept such a vocation, for which
they were not fitted. (Tillemont, Mem. Ecclis.
torn. ix. p. 704, notexvi.) [E. V.]
NONNA (8), ST. (NouurrA, Non, Notra),
mother of St. David. A legendary life of her
existed a.v. 1281, in the service book of her
church at Alternun, in Cornwall. This is close
by Davidstow, and St. David's Welsh name,
Dewi, is preserved in the local pronunciation,
Dewstow. Her feast day was 3rd March, two
days after the date of her son's death. Several
places in Cornish parishes, such as Creed and
Pelynt, and in Bradstone, just across the Tamar
in Devon, were sacred to her, and a mystery
play written in her honour existed in Brittany
before the 12th century (Buhez Santez Nonn.
ed. Sionnet). St. Nun's pool in Alternun was
famous for the cure of lunacy. An inscription
at Tregony (Buhner's Inscriptions Britannia*
Ctrittkmae, No. 10) reads Nonnita, Ercili, Viri-
cati, tris 61i Ercilinci, which shews the existence
of the name in Cornwall. As Cornwall and
South Wales were evidently under the same
dynasty, and kindred chiefs ruled in Brittany,
the wandering Celtic saints found a home in each
without difficulty. Rees gives the names of
several churches in Wales dedicated to her, all
in the immediate neighbourhood of churches
escribed to St. David. (Haddan and Stubbs, ii.
98; William of Worcester, 164; Rees, Welsh
SaiaU. 162-166, 180, 200, 341.) [C. W. B.]
NONNICHIUS, (NuNEcmnO, 10th bishop
of Nantes, A.D. 472, signed the acts of the coun-
cil of Vannes, and had a converted Jew specially
recommended to him by Sidonius Apollinaris
(Migne, Pat. Lat. t. lviii. 611, Ep. 13; Binius,
Cone. ii. 421 ; Gall. Chr. xiv. 797; Tillem. xvi.
234: Ceillier, Aut. Sacr. x. 394). [J. G.]
NONNICHIUS (2) H. (Ntnnncmus Moni-
CBID8, MONNICHIUS, MaNOCHUS, DONICHIUS),
bishop of Nantes, succeeding his cousin Felix
(117) in 582, and thought by the Sammarthani,
but without grounds, to have been the count of
Limoges in the following article (Gall. Chr. xiv.
800; Greg. Tur. H. F. vi. 15). Gregory of
Tours (Afirac S. Martin, iv. 27) relates that he
brought his infirm servant to the church of St.
Martin at Tours on a feast day of the saint, and
after the services took him home cured. The
stme author (H. F. viii. 43) mentions that the
sen of Nonnichias was suspected of being con-
cerned in the death of Domnola, the wife of
Xectarius. Nonnichus is mentioned by Venantius
Fortunatus in his Life of Germamu (cap. 60 in
Patr. Lat. lxxxviii. 472). [C. H.]
NONNICHIUS (3), count of Limoges in the
reign of Chilperic, occasioned the spread of false
NONNUS
51
accusations against Charterius bishop of Peri
gueux, 582. Two months afterwards he died
(Greg. Tur. B. F. vi. 22 ; Aimoin, G. F. iii. 48
in Bouquet, iii. 89 ; Gall. Chr. ii. 1453).
[C. H.]
NONNITUS (1), bishop of Gerona, in Cata-
lonia, sncceeded Joannes Biclarensis, 621, and
died 633 (Gams, Ser. Episc. 32). He was a
monk, and continued to rule by example rather
than command (Ildefonsus, De Vir. III. c. 10, ap.
Migne, Pat. Lat. xcvi. 203; Fleury, H. E.
xxxvii. c 46 ; Ceillier, Aut. Sacr. xi. 699).
[J. G.]
NONNITUS (2), said to have been the fint
bishop of Seville after the Saracen conquest.
(Ftp. Sag. ix. 235.) [F. D.]
NONNOSUS (l),son of Abraham, a priest,
was sent by the emperor Justinian on an embassy
to Caisus king of the Saracens, to Elesbaan,
king of the Anxumites, and to the Homerites.
After many dangers he returned and wrote a
history of his journey, but we now possess only
an abridgment by Photius (Cod. 3 ; Corp. Scrip.
Hilt. Byz. Bonn, 1829, pt. i. 478, sq. ; Hoes-
chelius, Bibl. Photo, Ant. 1611, pp. 6-7 ; Fabri-
cius, Bibl. Or. vi. 239), omitting the fabulous
and condensing details. His father Abraham,
and grandfather Nonnosus, had been sent on
similar missions. He lived about A.D. 540
(Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 519 ; Ceillier, Aut. Sacr. xt
280 ; Smith. Diet. Gr. and R. Biog. ii. 1208).
[J. G.]
NONNOSUS (8), provost of a monastery on
Mount Soracte, to whom miracles were attri-
buted. (Greg. Mag. Dial. i. 7 ; Epp. lib. iii. ind.
xi. ep. 51 in Patr. Lat. lxxvii. ; Oeill. xi. 474 ;
Dupin, i. 580, ed. 1722.) [C. H.]
NONNOSUS (8), a person of station, whose
request for a certain possession in 591 pope
Gregorv the Great intends to comply with
(lib. i. ind. ix. ep. 22 ; JaffiC E. P. num. 725).
[C.H.]
NONNUS (1), one of the leading inhabitants
of the town of Zeugma, to whom, with others,
Theodoret addressed a consolatory letter (Ep. 125)
in the midst of the persecutions subsequent to
the " Latrocininm," 449, encouraging them in
their struggle for the maintenance of the
orthodox faith, which for their instruction he
sets forth distinctly, guarding them from the
opposite errors of Nestorius and Eutyches.
[E. V.]
NONNUS (8) of Panopolis. The name is
very common, being properly an Egyptian title
equivalent to Saint. Consequently confusion has
arisen between this writer and others of the
same name. He has been identified, with some
probability, with a Nonnus whose son is men-
tioned by Synesius (Ep. ad Anastas. 42, ad Pyl.
102); and, with very little probability, with
the deacon Nonnus, secretary at the council of
Chalcedon, A.r>. 451 ; or Nonnus, the bishop of
Edessa, elected at the synod of Ephesus, a.d.
449 ; or lastly with Nonnus the commentator
on Gregory Nazianzen (vide Bentley, Phalaris
ad in.).
Life.—Ot his life we have no details. He was
a native of Panopolis in Egypt ; cf. Eudocia, s. e.
£ 2.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
52
NONNUS
Agathias, iv. p. 128 ; and an epigram In Anth.
Graeca, i. p. 140.
HovtMK eyit' Uovbt fiir «pi) irrfAtf. *Eif yapiy &i
He is classed by Agathias among o{ yiot woiijrai,
and this mention, supported by a comparison of
his poems with the other late Epic writers,
makes it probable that his date should be placed
at the end of the fourth and beginning of the
fifth century, A.D. Beyond this nothing is
known for certain. The Dionysiaca shews fre-
quently n knowledge of astronomy (cf. vi. 60,
xxt. xxxviii. 4), and a special interest in
Berytus (xli.), Tyre (xl.), and Athens (xlvii.),
but whether this arises from a personal ac-
quaintance with these towns is uncertain. In
iv. 250, the discoveries of Cadmus are traced
to Egypt, but otherwise there is no reference
to his native country. The whole tone of the
Dionysiaca, with its delight in the drunken im-
moralities of Dionysus, makes it hard to believe
that the poem was written by a Christian. Con-
sequently there is a probability that this was
a work early in life, that after it Nonnus was
converted to Christianity, and that the para-
phrase of St. John was written after his conver-
sion. Possibly, as has been suggested, it may
have been intended as a contrast to the Diony-
siaca, portraying the life and apotheosis of one
more worthy than Dionysus of the name of God.
Possibly too, as has also been suggested, Nonnus
may have been one of the Greek philosophers
who accepted Christianity at the time of the
destruction of heathen temples under the decree
of Theodosius (Socr. Ecd. Hiit. v. 16).
Work$. — Of his literary position it is possible to
speak with more certainty. He was the centre, if
not the founder, of the literary Egyptian school,
which gave to Greek Epic poetry a new though
short-lived brilliancy, and to which belonged
Quintus of Smyrna, John of Gaza, Coluthus,
Tryphiodorns, and Musaeus. This school revived
the historical and mythological epic, but treated
it in a style peculiar to itself, of which Nonnus is
the best representative. While frequently pro-
claiming himself an imitator of Homer, and
shewing traces of the influence of Callimachus
and later writers, he yet created new metrical
rules, which gave an entirely new effect to the
general rhythm of the poem. This was effected
by the avoidance of the combination of two
spondees, a frequent use of long, especially dac-
tylic, compounds, and of the trochaic caesura in
the third foot ; by a very sparing use of elision,
contracted inflections, crasis and hiatus, which
is very rare at the end of any foot, except the
first and fourth, and rarer still in arsis. These
rules are less strictly observed in the Paraphrase
than in the Dionysiaca. The general effect is
however in both that of an easy but rather
monotonous flow, always pleasant, but never
rising or falling with the tone of the narrative.
The style is very florid, marked by a luxuriance
of epithets and original compounds (often of
very arbitrary formation), of elaborate peri-
phrasis, and of metaphors often piled together in
hopeless confusion ; and many unusual forms are
invented (e.g. UktuKo, ayytXa, Bipaa), by false
analogy. Point is gained by a fondness for sharp
antithesis (cf. Paraph, iii. 5, tiUaKaXov ctvSpa
S«8a<ncw,Tii. 52, M « M<M J M€ „ () , NucdSjj/wy apt>4«a,
NONNUS
zl. 44, xviii. 31), and the repetition of an emphatic
word or clause (cf. viii. 55 ; ix. 6, 9, 13 ; xiv. 8 ;
xviii. 6, &c). So that he seems to deserve the
title of \oyuararos applied to him by Eudocia
(cf. Lehrs, Quaest. Epicae. p. 253; Ludwich,
BcitrSge zur Kritik des Nonnus. Regiomonti,
1873 ; and the references in Bernhardy, Oi-und-
riss dcr Gr. Lit. § 99, 4).
The Dionysiaca attributed to Nonnus by Aga-
thias (nil s.) is a history of the birth, conquests
and apotheosis of Dionysus, spun out at such great
length that the main thread is almost lost. The
poem commences with a description of the chaos
existing in the world and the sadness of human
life before the birth of Dionysus, narrating
incidentally (iv. 250 sqq.) the introduction of
civilisation and the first elements of the worship
of the first Dionysus into Greece from Egypt
(i.— vi.) ; then comes an account of the birth
and education of Dionysus, and his early con-
nexion with the Satyrs (vii.-xii.); then, as
the central point, his attack on India and con-
quest of its leaders and maidens (xiii.-xl.) ; then
the return to Syria and Greece, the conquest of his
foes there, and the apotheosis in Olympus after
he has begotten a child to take his place on earth
(xli.-xlviii.). The whole seems a fanciful treat-
ment of the Dionysiac legend, altered partly by
the poet's own imagination erecting Ampelus,
Staphyle, Botrys, &c, into real personages ;
partly perhaps by the influence of Alexander's
similar conquest of India. The idea of the triple
incarnation of Dionysus and the fantastic shapes
that he assumes may perhaps be due to an
Oriental influence, and a careful examination of
the Indian names might repay the efforts of
Indian scholars. The whole poem has been
regarded "as an allegory of the march of civili-
sation across the ancient world ;" but it would
be simpler, and we hope truer, to describe it as
"the gradual establishment of the cultivation
of the vine and the power of the Wine-God."
The chief editions are those of Falkeubourg.
Antwerp, 1569 ; Lectius, with Latin transl. in
Corp. Poet. Gr. ii. Gen. 1606. Cunaeus, Hanau.
1605; Graefe, Leipzig, 1819-26. Passow,
Leipzig, 1834 ; Le Comte de Marcellus, with
interesting introduction, French transl. and
notes, in Didot's Bibl. Gratca, Paris, 1856.
Kochly with apparatus criticus, Leipzig, 1857,
cf. Ouwarow, St. Petersburg, 1817. Kohler,
iiber die Dion, det Nonnus, Halle, 1853.
(2) Paraphrase(lttTa0o\4)ofSt.John'sGospel,
attributed to Nonnus by Eudocia (Viol. 311).
This is a fairly faithful paraphrase of the
whole of the Gospel. It seems impossible to
decide exactly what text was used by Nonnus.
On the whole it seems to approximate most to
that represented by C. and L. among the MSS.,
and by the Memphitic version (cf. i. 24, iii. 15,
vi. 69, vii. 8, viii. 39, ix. 35, xii. 41). In i. 3 it
seems to agree with the Memph. v., and St.
Chrysostom as against all best uncials and the
Alexandrine interpretation, while in L 28, iii.
13, xii. 28 (?) it follows A.
The text is faithfully treated. The omissions,
except when he has MSS. authority (e.g. v. 1, 4 ;
vii. 53 sqq.), are rare (v. 1, 29; iv. 27, 41, 42 ;
vi.41,53; viii. 38; xviii. 16,18). The additions
are chiefly those of poetical expansion, remind-
ing ns of modern attempts to make the scene
graphic or portray the feelings of the actors.
Digitized by
Google
NOKNUS
Homeric epithets form a strange medley with the
Palestinian surroundings, and in many cases the
illustrations are drawn out into insipid details
(cf. iv. 26, vii. 21, xviii. 3, xx. 7). At other
times we have interpretations suggested, in
most of which he agrees with the Alexandrine
tradition as represented by Cyril and Origen,
cf. i. 16, 24, 42 (Peter's name); vi. 71 (the
motive of Judas); vii. 19 (the reference to the
Sixth Commandment) ; viii. 40 (the hospitality
of Abraham); xii. 6, 10; xviii. 15 (lx8u$S\ou
vaoi T<x>"is) ; xix. 7. In some of these inter-
pretations he seems obviously wrong ; e.g. ii. 12
i&ntS(Kipi6/tos) ; ii. 20, x. 12 (the reference to
Solomon); vii. 28 (Injiuv); xi. 44, oovtipiov,
explained as a Syrian word; while in ii. 4.
t( iuh yirai 4)e «al avrp, looks like an attempt to
avoid a slight to her who is constantly called
tfeOTOKOI.
He shews too a looseness in the nse of theo-
logical terms (cf. i. 3, juufloj ; 1, 50, xi. 27, \iyos)
which with the luxuriance of periphrasis forms
a striking contrast with the simplicity and
accuracy of St. John.
The Paraphrase was frequently edited in the
16th century. The chief editions are those
of Aldus, Venice, 1511; Nansios, Lngd. Bat.,
1589-93; Sylburg, 1596 ; Heinsius, Aristarchus
Sacer, Lugd. Bat. 1627; Passow, Leipzig, 1834;
Le Comte de Marcellus, with French transl. and
Botes, 1860. It will also be found in Migne,
vol. xliii. (with the notes of Heinsius and of Le
Comte de Marcellus) ; De la Bigne, Bibl. Palrum,
Appendix; Mansi, Bibl. Patr. vi. (ed. 1618),
ii. (ed. 1677). For an account of the MSS., cf.
Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. viii. p. 601 ; Kinkel, die
Ueberlieferuag des El. Joh. ton Nonnus, Zurich,
1870 ; Kochly, de Er. Joh. Paraphrati a Nonno,
Zurich, I860). See also a series of articles in
the Wiener Stvdien for 1880 and 1881.
[W.L.]
Among the Greek MSS. lately discovered in
the Fayum in Egypt has been found a fragment
of an Epic poem, which Dr. Stern, of Berlin,
attributes to the circle of Greek poets in Egypt,
•f which Nonnus was the centre. [G. T. S.]
NONNUS (8X commentator on Gregory
Hazianzen's In Julianum Imp. mvectivae duae :
his Greek scholia are given in Montague's
edition of that work, Eton, 1610, and Greg.
Naz. Opp. ii. Paris, 1630. By Fabricius (Bibl.
Grate, vii. 682, 690) he is called Palaestinus,
and the period assigned to him is the middle
of the 6th century. The commentary by Nonnus
is full of mistakes and of little value (Cave,
Hist. Lit. i. 249 ; Ceillier, Ant. Sacr. v. 247, here
called an abbat in the 5th centurv; Bentlcy,
Via. Phal. i. 94 sq. Lond. 1836). [J. G.J
NONNUS (4), bishop of Edessa. On the
deposition of Ibas by the " Latrocinium " of
Ephesus, a.d. 449, Nonnus was put in his place,
and as bishop of Edessa attended the council of
Chalcedon, A.D. 451. His name appears in the
first day's proceedings (Labbe, iv. 328, 373, 450,
467, 495, 553, 569), but after the eighth session,
in which Ibas was reinstated in his see, his name
disappears (Facund. Herm. lib. v. c. 3). Both
however signed the decree of faith promulgated
by the council, Nonnus as " bishop of the city
sf the Edessenes," Ibas as "bishop of Edessa"
NOREA
63
(Labbe, iv. 582, 586). On the restoration of
Ibas, the episcopal dignity was specially reserved
to Nonnus, and the consideration of his case was
committed to Maximus bishop of Antioch (ibid.
678). On the death of Ibas, Oct. 28, 457,
Nonnus returned to the see of Edessa, and as
metropolitan of Osrhoene headed the signatures
to the reply to Leo's letter in that year (ibid.
891, 917). A difficult question has been raised
whether Nonnus of Edessa was the same with
Nonnus of Heliopolis, the converter of the
notorious actress and courtesan Pelagia of
Antioch, whose biography was written by James
the deacon. The circumstances of this conver-
sion are fully detailed elsewhere [Jacobus (40) ;
Pelaqia]. Baronius (Martyrol. Oct. 8), follow-
ing Nicephorus (H. E. xiv. 30) and Theophanes
(CAron. p. 79), regards them as the same. This
is also accepted by Vossius (de Hist. Graec. lib.
ii. c. 20) and by Gams (Series Episc.) on the
view that after he was obliged to give way to
Ibas he was translated to Heliopolis, which city
he converted to the faith (Roswcid. Vit. Patr.
p. 379), and thence on the death of Ibas re-
turned to Edessa. This hypothesis is combated
by Tillcmont (Mem. Eccles. torn. xii. p. 664,
Note sur Sainte Pelagie). [E. V.]
NONNUS (6), bishop of Amid 505 ; ap-
pointed at the request of the people by the
patriarch Flavian, in succession to John who
had died before the city was taken (Jan. 503)
by the Persians under Carades. He had pre-
viously been a presbyter and oeconomus under
John. He sent Thomas, his chorepiscopus, to
Constantinople (Thomas ( )], as his deputy to
the emperor Anastasius ; but Thomas treacher-
ously intrigued against him, procured his depo-
sition, and was consecrated in his room, within
the same year. Flavian thereupon sent Nonnus
to fill the vacant see of Seleucia, which he held
until he was expelled as a Severian in 519. He
then returned to his native Amid, where, on the
death of Thomas the same year, he was, against
his will, reappointed to the throne, but held it
only three months, dying 519-20. He was suc-
ceeded by Maras (a man of noble birth), also a
Severian, who was soon after banished by Justin,
and lived seven years in exile at Petra with his
two virgin sisters. See farther, Thomas Harkl.
(Chron. of Joshua Styl., c. 83, Wright's edition ;
and ap. Assem. ii. 49.) [J. Gw.]
NONNUS (6), bishop of Circesium, a Mono-
physite and follower of Severus of Antioch. He
was banished by the emperor Justin, a.d. 518-
527. He survived till a.d. 532, at least he
was one of the bishops attached to the party of
Severus, who in that year had a conference at
Constantinople with Hypatius of Ephesus and
other Catholic prelates [HvPATitis (8)].
[G. T. S.]
NOREA. According to an Ophite system
reported by Irenaeus (i. 30) the sister of Seth ;
in another system the name of the wife of
Noah (Epiph. Boer. 26, p. 82). [See Horaea.]
Epiphanius says that the real name of Noah's
wife was not Norea but Parthenos, on which
Lipsius ingeniously conjectures that in Norea
the Hebrew TCiVZ is preserved of which rap-
tiros is a translation. [G. 8.]
Digitized by
Google
54
NOBOBEBT
NOBOBEBT (Norbert), a presbyter to
whom, when on his travels, Alcuin gave a letter
of introduction to his friends (Ale. Ep. 211,Migne,
161 Froben, in Opp. i. 221 Krob.). [C. H.]
NORSESES I, Catholicus of Armenia for
thirty-four yean towards the latter portion of
4th century. Ammianus Marcellinus (lib. zrii.
12) calls him Nicrses, son of Athenagoras, nephew
of Hesychius, and grand-nephew of St. Gregory
the Illuminator, He was present at the council
of Constantinople, AJ>. 381. He was poisoned
by Pharme, son of king Arsaces. [Armenians,
t. i. p. 164.] (Le Quien, Orient Christ, i. 1375 ;
Galanus, Hist. Armen. iii. 109.) [G. T. S.]
NORSESES II., alios Nicrses, twenty-fifth
Catholicus of Armenia. He succeeded Leontius,
and held the national council of Tiben, A.D. 535,
which consummated the division between the
orthodox Greek and tho Armenian churches, as
told nnder Armenians, t. i. p. 165. [G. T. S.]
NOBSESES m. alias Nierses, thirty-third
Catholicus of Armenia. He made in the early
half of the 7th century an attempt, successful for
a time, to reunite the Armenian and orthodox
churches as told under Armenians, t. i. p. 165.
[G. T. S.]
NOTBUBG, ST. (Neitbubga, Notburg,
KOITBUBOA, NOTBURQIS, NOTHBUBO), niece of
Plectrude the wife of Pepin of Heristal. She
was brought up by Plectrude, and lived with her
at Cologne, in the palace which Plectrude made
into a monastery, about 689. Notburg being
threatened with a marriage suitable to her
rank, prayed to be delivered by death from such
a fate, and presently died, about A.D. 700.
Supernatural lights ore said to have appeared at
her head and at her feet, in testimony to her
holiness. She was venerated as a saint by
the people of Cologne. Her day is Oct. 31.
(Surius, De Probatis Sanctorum Historiis, v.
1006, 1007, edit. Col. Ag, 1570 j Le Cointe, An-
nates Ecclesiae Franoorwn, iv. 213, 214, ann.
689 ; Brower, Annates Trevirenses, lib. vii. 362.
Her name is in the Auctaria of Greven and Mo-
lanus to Usuard, Oct. 31, Migne, exxiv. 641,
642.) [A. B. C. D.]
NOTHBALD (Northbald, Nodbaldcs),
the ninth abbat of St. Augustine's. The dates
assigned to him are a.d. 732-748 (Hon. Angl.
i. 120, 121 ; Elmham, ed. Hardwick, pp. 10,
302-316; Thorn, ap. Twysden, cc. 1772, 2235,
2236). According to the monastic authorities,
Nothbald received the benediction from arch-
bishop Tatwin (Thorn, c. 1772), and the later
historian, Elmham, adds that be was elected by
the brethren after a proper licence had been
obtained from the king of Kent, and in con-
formity with the decree of Augustine (p. 302).
The same writer mentions the abbat's friendship
with archbishop Nothelm (t6. p. 312). Nothing
definite is recorded of his abbacy. The place of
his burial was unknown, but Elmham gives a
traditionary epitaph (p. 316) :
" Nottabftldl mores rutilant Inter senlores
CnJus erat vita sublectis norma pollta."
[S.]
NOTHBEBT (Northbert), the second
bishop of Elmham after the division of the East
NOTHELM
Anglian dioceses (.Won. Hist. Brit. p. 618 ; W-
Malmesbury, 0. P. p. 148). He is known only
from the fact that his name occurs in the ancient
lists, between those of Beadwin and Heatholac
The last trace of Beadwin's existence occurs in
A.D. 693 (Kemble, C. D. 36), and Hentholac first
appears in Bede's list of contemporary bishops
in 731 ; (ff. E. v. 23). Between these limits
Nothbert's episcopate must have fallen, and ac-
cordingly his name is attached as subscribing to
the grant of Oshere to the monastery of Evesham,
which is dated A.D. 706 (Kemble, C. D. 56) ; and to
the decree of the council of Clovesho of a.d. 716,
in which the privilege of king Wihtrcd was con-
firmed (Haddan and Stubbs, iii 300). [S.]
NOTHEABD, presbyter of the diocese of
Winchester, present at the council of Clovesho,
Oct. 12, 803 (Kemble, C. D. 1024). [C. H.]
NOTHELM (1), kine of the South Saxons,
known to us only from a charter by him in
the chapter library at Chichester printed by
Kemble (G D. num. 995). He grants to his
sister Nothgitha lands in Lydesige, Aldingburne,
Genstedegate, Mundhame, for the erection of a
monastery and church. The charter bears its
own date " anno ab incarnatione Christi 692,"
and is subscribed by Nunna king of the South
Saxons, VVattus king, Cocnred king of the West
Saxons, Ine, Eadberht bishop, Aldhelm and
Hagnna abbats. [Osmund (3)J [C. H. j
NOTHELM (8), tenth archbishop of Canter-
bury. He was a priest of the church of London,
St. Paul's, and a common friend of Bede and
Albinus, abbat of St. Augustine's, who com-
municated through him to the venerable his-
torian all that he knew of the early history of
the Kentish church. Nothelm himself, some
time between 715 and 731, visited Rome, and
searched the records of the holy set by permis-
sion of pope Gregory II. : bringing away copies
of letters which were incorporated by Bede in
his history. Thorn and Elmham, the historians
of St. Augustine's, give Nothelm the title of
arch-priest of St. Paul's (Elmh. p. 312 ; Thorn,
c 1772), and he probably was not a monk.
Archbishop Tatwin died on the 30th of June,
734 ; the consecration of Nothelm as his succes-
sor is dated by the Continuator of Bede in 735,
and possibly may have been performed by Egbert
of York, who just at that crisis received his
pall from Gregory III. In 736 he received his
own pall from the same pope, and afterwards
consecrated three bishops, Cuthbert of Hereford,
Ethelfrith of Elmham, and Herewald of Sher-
borne. The same year he received a letter from
St. Boniface, asking for the Responsiones of St.
Gregory to Augustine, as to whether a man might
marry a woman for whose son he had been
sponsor, and in what year St. Gregory sent his
mission to Britain (Mon. Mognnt. ed. JafiiS, no.
30 ; Comdis, Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 335, 336).
Nothelm certainly held one ecclesiastical council
in 736 or 737, attended by nine bishops of the
province ; one act, by which he ordered the re-
storation of • charter concerning an estate at
Withington to the abbess Hrotwari, is preserved
in the Worcester Cartulary ; (Kemb. C. D. no. 82,
Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 338). This act u de-
scribed as a decree of a sacred synod. Nothelm's
Digitized by
Google
NOTHGITHA
• appears in another charter as corroborating
a record in April 738 (Keroble, C. D. no. 86).
He died after a pontificate of five years on
the 17th of October, probably in the year 739 :
(Cont. Bed. M. B. B. 288; see Haddan and
Stubbs, iii. 335), bnt as his (accessor was ap-
pointed in 740 his death is sometimes advanced
a year. Cnthbert was certainly archbishop in
740.
A short poetical life of Nothelm containing
ten lines only, and no particulars, is printed
from a Lambeth MS. in Wharton's Anglia Sacra,
ii. 71. The historians of St. Augustine's add to
our information about him only that he was a
patron of Abbat Northbald (Elmham, 312), and
kit epitaph in four lines of Latin verse. As he
was not a monk he does not seem to have caught
the fancy of the Benedictine Annalists : but in
the Bollandist Acts, October, vol. iii. pp. 117-
124, there is an article on his history.
His career as archbishop is unfortunately ob-
scure ; coinciding as it does with one of the
darkest portions of Kentish history, and with
the period of the greatest illumination in the
church of York, any ray of historical light from
Canterbury would have been doubly valuable.
At it is, Bede's obligation to Nothelm daring his
tenure of office at St. Paul's is the most impor-
tant point about his history.
The literary history of Nothelm elaborated by
Leland (Seriptoret, p. 181) and Bale (ed. 1559,
p. 100) m imaginary, or, to say the least, apo-
cryphal. [S.]
HOTHGITHA. [Nothelm (1).]
NOTHLAN, bishop. [Nathalan.]
NOUS. In the Valentinian system [Valek-
tmus]. Nous is the first male Aeon. Together
with his conjugate female Aeon, Aletheia,
he emanates from the Propator Bythos and his
coeternal Ennoia or Sige ; and these four form
the primordial Tetrad. Like the other male
Aeons he is sometimes regarded as bisexual, in-
cluding in himself the female Aeon who is
paired with him. He is the Only Begotten ; and
is styled the Father, the Beginning of all, inas-
much as from him are derived immediately or
mediately the remaining Aeons who complete
the Ogdoad, thence the Decad, and thence the
Uodecad ; in all thirty, Aeons constituting the
Pleroma. He alone is capable of knowing the
Propator ; but when he desired to impart like
knowledge to the other Aeons, was withheld
from so doing by Sige. When Sophia, youngest
Aeon of the thirty, was brought into peril by
her yearning after this knowledge, Nous was
foremost of the Aeons in interceding for bcr.
From him, or through him from the Propator,
Horns was sent to restore her. After her re-
storation, Nous, according to the providence of
the Pronator, produced another pair, Christ and
the Holy Spirit, " in order to give fixity and
stedfastness (««j lrvi^" "at OTqpi-yytov) to the
Pleroma." For this Christ teaches the Aeons to
be content to know that the Propator is in him-
self incomprehensible, and can be perceived only
through the Only Begotten(Nous). (Iren. Haeres.
IL1-5j Hippol. Sef. ri. 29-31 ; Theod. Hatr.
Fab. i. 7.)
A similar conception of Nous appears in the
NOVATIANISM
55
later teaching of the Basilidean School [Basi-
mdes], according to which he is the first
begotten of the Unbegotten Father, and himself
the parent of Logos, from whom emanate suc-
cessively Phronesis, Sophia, and Dynamis. But
in this teaching Nous is identified with Christ,
is named Jesus, is sent to save those that be-
lieve, and returns to Him who sent him, after a
passion which is apparent only, — Simon the
Cyrenian being substituted for him on the
cross (Iren. 1. xxiv. 4 ; Theod. H. E. i. 4). It is
probable, however, that Nous had a place in
the original system of Basilides himself; for his
Ogdoad, " the great Archon of the universe, the
ineffable " (Hipp. vi. 25) is apparently made up
of the fire members named by Irenaeus (as
above), together with two whom we find in
Clement (Strom, iv. 25), Dikaiosyne andEirenc, —
added to the originating Father.
The antecedent of these systems is that of
Simon Magus (Hipp. vi. 12 ff. ; Theod. I. i.),
of whose six "roots" emanating from 'the
Unbegotten Fire, Nous is first. The correspon-
dence of these " roots " with the first six Aeons
which Valentinus derives from Bythos, is
noted by Hippolytus (vi. 20). Simon says in
his 'Aico<pa<ris /it-yaKi) (ap. Hipp. vi. 18).
"There are two offshoots of the entire ages,
having neither beginning nor end. ... Of these
the one appears from above, the great power,
the Nous of the universe, administering all
things, male ; the other from beneath, the great
Epinoia, female, bringing forth all things."
To Nous and Epinoia correspond Heaven and
Earth, in the list given by Simon of the six
material counterparts of his six emanations.
The identity of this list with the six material
objects alleged by Herodotus (i.) to be wor-
shipped by the Persians, together with the
supreme place given by Simon to Fire as the
primordial power, leads us to look to Persia for
the origin of these systems in one aspect. In
another, they connect themselves with the
teaching of Pythagoras and of Plato. In the
subsequent developments of Neoplatonism, Nous
is prominent. To *Oe, Nov*, and Vvxhi consti-
tute the Trinity of Plotiuus. [Neoi'LATOnism,
p. 20.] (Harvey's Irenaeus, Prelim. Obss. ;
Hansel's Gnostic Heresies.) [J. Gw.]
NOVATIANISM. The members of this
sect were called by themselves KaBapot (Euseb.
H. E. vi. 43). They were called by others
Novatiani (Pacian. Ep. i. sec. i.) ; Mundi
(Ambr. de Poenit. lib. i. cap. i.)i NaudVoi,
Nat/ariayol, 'KpurrtpoX, or 'Apitrrot (Soc. H. E.
iv. 28 ; Cone. CP. can. vii. in Hef. ii. 366,
Clark's ed. ; Timoth. CP. in Meursii Var. Div.
Lib. pp. 121, 125) ; Nauariaful aiptotrai
(Suidas), Montenses, Mon-ijffioi (Noris, Hist.
Donat. Opp. iv. 301, ed. 1732, and Hef. ii.
387, ed. Clark; cf. however Cod. Theod. ed.
Haenel, p. 1550, which applies this name to
Donatists) ; Sinistri, Scaevi (Bened. ed. in
Ambr. Je Poenit. I. &). Offshoots of the sect
are called Sabbatiani or 2a$0aTiwol in Cod.
Theod. ed. Haen. pp. 1566, 1570, and Proto-
paschitae in Cod. Theod. p. 1581.
Novatianism was the first great schism in the
church on a pure question of discipline. In
Montanism questions of discipline were involved
as side issues, but did not constitute its essential
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
56
NOVATIANISM.
NOVATIANISM
difference. All sects previous to Novatianism
had erred on the doctrine of the Trinity. The
Novatians alone were orthodox thereupon. The
church therefore baptized even Montanists,
while admitting Noratians by imposition of
hands alone (Cone. Laodic. can. vii. viii. ; Hef.
Councils, ed. Clark, t. ii. 303, 332 ; Cone. CP.
can. vii. in Hef. /. c. ut sup. ; Pitra, Jur. Ecclcs.
Graec. Hist. i. 430, 576). The reader will find
in the articles on Cyprian, Novatian, and
Novatus the circumstances which gave rise in
a.d. 251 to the so-called Novatian sect. The
principles, however, which Novatian formulated
into a system, and to which he gave a name,
took not their rise from him ; they existed and
flourished long before. The origin of the Nova-
tian schism must be sought in the struggle
which, originating with The shepherd of Hermas
(Baur, Church Hist, trans. Menzies, 1879, t. ii.
p. 50, note ; cf. Ritschl, Entstchung der Althath.
JCirche, 2nd ed. p. 529), had been raging at
Rome for seventy years, at first with the
Montanists and the followers of Tertullian,
and then between Hippolytus and Callistus.
Every one of the distinctive principles of
Novatianism will be found advocated by some
or all of them (Baur, /. c. p. 270, note). The
Montanists rejected the lapsed, and in fact all
who were guilty of mortal sins, Tertullian
second marriages, as also did the strict dis-
cipline of the 2nd century (Ambr. da Viduis,
cap. ii. ; Lumper, Hist. S3. PP. iii. 95. De
S. Athenag. ; Aug. Ep. ad Julian, do Viduit.).
Hippolytus held, in a great degree, the
same stern views. This identity in principle
between Montanism and Novatianism has been
noted by many ; both of the ancients and
moderns, e.g. Epiph. Hacr. 59 ; Hieron. Opp.
Migne, Pat. Lat. t. i. 188, Ep. ad Marcellam,
457, Ep. ad Occanum ; t. vii. 697 cont. Jovinian.
lib. ii. ; Gieseler, H. E. t. i. pp. 213-215, 284,
ed. Clark ; Neander, Anti-Gnostic, t. ii. p. 362 ;
Bunsen, Christ, and Mankind, t. i. 395, 428 ;
Pressensc, Life and Pract. of Early Ch. lib. i.
cap. 6, 7 ; Baur, /. c. pp. 124-126. Not with
Montanism only, but also with Donatism is
Novatianism allied, for it is the same question,
viz. the treatment of the lapsed, which under-
lay that schism as well. Other points of
similarity between the three may just be noted.
They all sprung up, or else found their most
enthusiastic supporters in Africa. They each
arose simultaneously with great persecutions.
They were separated by periods of about fifty
years. The two earliest of them at least, as wo
shall have occasion to notice, proved their essen-
tial oneness, uniting their ranks in Phrygia in
the course of the 4th century. Novatianism
may indeed be regarded as a conservative protest
on behalf of the ancient discipline against the
prevalent liberalism of the Koman church (Baur,
/. c. p. 271). The sterner treatment of the
lapsed naturally found favonr with the more en-
thusiastic party, who usually give the tone to
any religious society. Thus Eleutherus, bishop
of Rome, in latter part of 2nd century was in-
clined to take the Puritan view (Euseb. H. E.
Jib. v. cap. 3). Ozanam, in his History of deni-
zation in oth Cent. t. ii. p. 214, Eng. trans., has
noted an interesting proof of the prevalence at
that timo of this view in Home. Archaeologists
have often been puzzled by the symbol of a Good
Shepherd, carrying a. kid, not a lamb, on his
shoulders, found in the cemetery of St. Callistus.
Ozanam explains it as a reference by the ex-
cavators of the cemetery to the prevalent Moo-
tanist doctrine, which denied the possibility of a
goat being brought back in this life. Novatian-
ism thus fell upon ground prepared for it, and
found in every quarter a body of adherents with
whose views it coincided. At the same time it
must be observed that Novatian was the first
who made the treatment of the lapsed the ex-
press ground of schism. In fact many continued
to hold the same view within the church during
the next one hundred and fifty years (cf. Hef.
Councils, t. i. p. 134, Clark's ed.; Innocent I. Ep.
iii. ad Ejcuperium, in Mansi, iii. 1039). This fact
accounts for the rapid spread of the sect. la
Africa they established themselves in many
cities within the course of the two years subse-
quent to Novatian's consecration in the spring
of a.d. 251 (Cyprian, Vol. I. p. 746 of this
Diet.). In Southern Gaul Marcian, bishop of
Aries, joined them (Cypr. Ep. lxviii. ; Greg-
Turon. Hist. Francor. lib. i. in Migne, Pat.
Eat. lxxi. 175). In the East they made great
progress, as we conclude from the state of affairs
presented to us by Socrates. Between A.D. 260>
and the council of Nice we hear scarcely any-
thing about them. The controversies about
Sabellianism and Paul of Samosata, together
with the rising tide of Arianism, occupied the
church during the concluding years of the 3rd.
centnry, while the peace which it enjoyed pre-
vented the question of the lapsed becoming a
practical one. We may, however, trace the-
influence of this period on Novatian doctrine.
It became harder and sterner. Obliged to vindi-
cate their position, they drew the reins lighter
than Novatian had done. With him idolatry
was the one crying sin which excluded from
communion. During the long peace there was.
no temptation to this sin, therefore his followers-
were obliged to add all other deadly sins to the-
list (Soc. H. E. vii. 25 ; Ambr. de Poenit. lib. i.
capp. 2, 3 ; Ceill. v. 466, 467). At the council
of Nice we find them established far and wide,,
with a regular succession of bishops at the
principal cities of the empire and in the highest
reputation for piety. The monk Eutychian, one »f
their number, was a celebrated miracle-worker,
reverenced by Constantino himself, who also en-
deavoured at the same time to lead one of their
bishops, Acesius, to unite with the Catholics
(Soc. H. E. i. 10, 13) [Acesius]. Durinir the 4th
century we can trace their history much more
clearly in the East than in the West, as Socrates
gives such copious details about them, as have
led some (Nicephorus, Baronius, and P. Labbacus).
to suspect that he was a member of the sect.
In the East their fortunes were very varying.
Under Constantino they were tolerated and even,
favoured {Cod. Theod. ed. Haenel, lib. xvi. tit. t.
p. 1522). Under Constantius they were violently
persecuted, together with the rest of the
Homoousian party, by the patriarch Mace-
donia. Socrates (ii. 38) mentions several
martyrs for the Catholic faith whom they then
furnished,speciallyoneAlexanderaPaphlagonian r
to whose memory they built a church at Con-
stantinople existing in his own day. Several of
their churches, too, were destroyed at Constan-
tinople and Cy zicus, but were restored by Julian
Digitized by
Google
NOVATIANISM
ipon his accession, and Agelius their bishop was
banished. " But Macedonins consummated his
wickedness in the following manner. Hearing
there was a great number of the Novation sect
in the province of Paphlagonia, and especially at
Hantiniom, and, perceiving that such a nume-
rous body could not be driven from their homes
by ecclesiastics alone, he caused, by the emperor's
permission, four companies of soldiers to be sent
into Paphlagonia that, through dread of the
military, they might receive the Arian opinion.
But those who inhabited Mantinium, animated
to desperation by zeal for their religion, armed
themselves with long reaping-hooks, hatchets,
aod whatever weapons came to hand, and went
forth to meet the troops, on which, a conflict en-
suing, many indeed of the Paphlagonians were
slain, but nearly all the soldiers were destroyed."
This persecution well-nigh brought about a
union between the Catholics and the Novatians,
as the former frequented the churches of the
latter party during the Arian supremacy. The
Novatians again, however, as in Constantine's
time, were obstinate in refusing to unite with
those whose church-theory was different from
their own, though their faith was alike. Under
Valens, seven years later, a.d. 366, they suffered
another persecution, and Agelius was again
exiled. Under Theodosius, bishop at Constan-
tinople, Agelius appeared in conjunction with
the orthodox patriarch Nectarius as joint-
defenders of the Homoousian doctrine at the
synod of A.D. 383, on which account the emperor
conferred on their churches equal privileges with
those of the establishment (Soc H. E. v. 10,
20). John Chrysostom's severe zeal for church
discipline led him to persecute them. When
visiting Ephesus to consecrate a bishop, A.D. 401,
he deprived them of their churches, an act to
which many attributed John's subsequent mis-
fortunes. An expression uttered by Chrysostom
in reference to their peculiar views about sin
after baptism, " Approach (the altar) though you
may have repented a thousand tiroes," led to a
literary controversy between him and the learned
and witty Sisinnius, Novatian bishop of Con-
stantinople (Soc. H, E. vi. 21, 22). Two or
three other points of interest may be noted in
their history during the 4th century. About
the year 374 there occurred a schism in their
ranks concerning the true time of Easter.
Hitherto the Novatians had strictly observed the
Catholic rule. A few obscure Phrygian bishops
however convened a synod at Pazum or Pazn-
coma, where they agreed to celebrate the same
day as that on which the Jews keep the Feast
of Unleavened Bread. This canon was passed
in the absence of Agelius of Constantinople,
Maximus of Nice, and the bishops of Nicomedia
and Cotyaenm, their leading men (Soc. H. E. iv.
28). Jewish influence was also at work, as Sozo-
men (vii. 18) tells us that a number of priests were
converted by the Novatians at Pazum during the
reign of Valens, who still retained their Jewish
ideas about Easter. To this sect was given the
name Protopaschitae (Cod. Theod. ed. Haenel,
p. 1581), where severe penalties are denounced
against them as worshippers of a different Christ
because observing Easter otherwise than the
orthodox. This question, when raised by a
presbyter of Jewish birth, named Sabbatius,
some twenty years later, caused a further schism
NOVATIANISM
57
among the Novatians, at Constantinople, under
the episcopate of Marcian, a.d. 391, whence the
name Sabbatiani (2aj3/3aTuu>of). This division of
the Novatians finally coalesced with the Montan-
ists, though we can trace its distinct existence
till the middle of the 5th centurv [Sabbatius].
(Soc. H. E. v. 21 ; Soz. H. E. vii. 18 ; Cod. Theod.
ed. Haenel, pp. 1566, 1570, 1581). The curious
student will find many particulars about the
various customs of the Eastern Novatians and
concerning the reflex influence of the sect on the
church in the matter of auricular confession in
Soc. //. E. v. 19, 22. The historian in cap. 19
ascribes the original establishment of the office
of penitentiary presbyter and secret confession
to the Novatian schism. To prevent scrupulous
persons knowing who had lapsed, the bishops
appointed a presbyter to receive privately the
confession of penitents. This office continued in
Constantinople till the time of the patriarch
Nectarius, A.D. 391, when it was abolished owing
to a grave scandal which arose therefrom.
Thenceforward it was determined "to leave
every one to his own conscience with regard
to participation in the sacred mysteries."
The succession of Novatian patriarchs of Con-
stantinople during the 4th century was Acesius,
Agelius Marcianus, Sisinnius (Soc. //. E.
v. 21; vi. 22; Soz. H. E. vii. 14). During
the 5th century the Novatians continued to
flourish notwithstanding occasional troubles.
In Constantinople their bishops during the first
half of the century were Sisinnius, died in
a.d. 412, Chrysanthus in 419, Paul in 438
and Marcian. They lived on amicable terms
with the orthodox patriarch Atticus, who, re-
membering their fidelity under the Arian perse-
cution, protected them from their enemies. Paul
even enjoyed the reputation of a miracle-
worker, and died in the odour of universal
sanctity, all sects and parties uniting in singing
psalms at his funeral (Soc. H. E. vii. 46). In
Alexandria, however, they were persecuted by
Cyril, their bishop Theopemptus and their
churches plundered, notwithstanding which they
continued to exist in large numbers in that city
till the 7th century, when Eulogius, Catholic
patriarch of Alexandria, wrote a treatise against
them (Phot. Cod. 182, 208; Ceill. xi. 589>
Even in Scythia their churches existed, as we find
Marcus, a bishop from that country, present
at the death of Paul, Novatian bishop of Con-
stantinople in July 21, 438. In Asia Minor,
again, we find them as widely dispersed as the
Catholics. In parts of it, indeed, the orthodox
party seem for long to have been completely
absorbed by those who took the Puritan view.
Epiphanius tells ns, for instance, there were no
Catholics for 112 years in the citv of Thyatira
(ffaer. li. ; Lumper, Hist. SS. PP. viii. 259).
They had established a regular parochial
system. Thus (in Boeckh, Corp. Or. Inscriptt.
iv. 9268) we find at Laodicea in Lycaonia
an inscription on a tombstone erected by one
Aurelia Domna to her husband Paul, deacon of
the holy church of the Novatians (Nat/drew),*
» The learned Editor of Boeckh, not recognising the
name of the sect, speculates nboat some unknown
town of Nauo to which the holy deacon might be
assigned. Amid the corruptions of the Greek language
Navaroc was a frequent form assumed by the larger
Navaruwoc. See references at beginning of article.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
58
NOVATIANISM
while even towards the end of the preceding
century St. Basil, though hesitating on grounds
similar to those of Cyprian, to recognize their
baptism, concludes in its favour on the express
ground that it was for the advantage and profit
of the populace that it should be received (Basil,
Ep. clxxxviii. ad Amphiloch. ; cf. E. T. Smith's
Basil the Great, p. 119). After the close of the
5th century we find but few notices of their his-
tory. As the times of persecution receded into the
distance of antiquity, their protest about the
lapsed seemed obsolete and their adherents fell
away, on the one side to the church, on the other
to sects like the Montanists. The last formal
notice of their existence in the East within our
period will be found in the ninety-fifth canon
of the Trullan (Quinisext) council a.d. 692. In
the West we have no such particular details
of the history of the Novatian schism as in the
East. Yet we can perceive clear evidence of
their widespread and long-continued influence.
Already we have noted their extension into
Southern Gaul and Africa in the very earliest
days of its history. In Alexandria also, whose
church-life, however, belongs more to the East
than the West, we have noted its last historical
manifestation. Between the middle of the 3rd
century, when it arose, and the close of the 5th,
we find repeated notices of its existence and
power. Constantino's decree {Cod. Theod. XVI. v. 2,
with (iothofred's comment), for instance, giving
them a certain restricted liberty, was directed
to Bassus, probably vicarius of Italy. Towards
the close of the same 4th century we find a
.regular succession of Novatian bishops existing
— doubtless from Novatian 's time— at Rome, and
held in such high repute for piety that the
emperor Theodosius granted his life to the cele-
brated orator Symtnachus on the prayer of the
Novatian pope Leontius, A.D. 388. In the begin-
ning of the 5th century, however, pope Celes-
tine persecuted them, deprived them of their
churches, and compelled Rusticula their bishop
to hold his meetings in private, an act which
Socrates considers as another proof of the over-
weening and unchristian insolence of the Roman
see (If. E. vii. 11). In the Code we find about the
same time several severe edicts directed against
the Novatians (Cod. Theod. ed. Haenel, lib. xvi.
tit. v. legg. 59, 65, cf. vi. 6). In the south of Gaul
and north of Italy and Spain the Novatian sect
seems to have taken as firm root as in Phrygia
and central Asia Minor. Whether the original
religious teaching of the people whose Chris-
tianity may have been imported from Africa
but a short time before by Harcellinus
[Marcellinus, (2)], or the physical features —
the mountainous character, for instance, of
these countries — may not have inclined them
towards its stern discipline is a fair question.
The fact, however, is proved by the treatises
which Pocian of Barcelona and Ambrose of
Milan felt necessary to direct against them.
They are couched in language which proves the
sect to have been then an aggressive one and a
real danger to the church by the assertion of its
superior sanctity and purity. The work of the
Milanese bishop was evidently in answer to some
work lately produced by them (De Poenit. lib.
ii. cap. x.). The Separatist tendency begotten
of Novatianism in this district and continued
through Priscillianism, Adoptioniam, and Chtu-
NOVATIANUS
dius of Turin (Neander, H. E. t. vi. 119-130,
ed. Bonn; cf. specially note on p. 119) may be
a point of contact between the Novatians of
primitive times and the Waldenses and Albi-
genses of the Middle Ages. Their wide spread
in Africa in Augustine's time is attested by
Augustine, cont. Oaudent. in Opp. ed. Bened.
Paris, ix. 642, 794.
The principal controversial works directed
against the sect which remain to us, beside
those of Cyprian noted under his name, are the
epistles of St. Pacian of Barcelona, the de
Poenitentia of St. Ambrose, and the Quaatuma
in Abe. Testam. num. cii. wrongly attributed to
St. Augustine and found in the Parisian Ben.
edit. t. iii. pars ii. 2942-2958, assigned by the
editor to Hilary the deacon who lived under pope
Damasus. The work of Pacian contains many
interesting historical notices of the sect. From
it we find they refused to the Catholics the name
of a church, calling them Apostaticum, Capito-
linum, or Sytudrium, and, on the other hand,
rejected the name Novatians and styled them-
selves simply Christians (ICp. ii. sec 3). The
following were some of the texts relied on by
the Novatians, and to the consideration of which
the writers on the Catholic side applied them-
selves (1 Sam. ii. 25; Matt. x. 33; xii. 31 ; xiii.
47-49 •, 1 Cor. vi. 18 ; 2 Tim. ii. 20 ; Heb. vi. 4-7 ;
1 John v. 15). Novatianism in the tests which
it used, its efforts after a perfectly pure commu-
nion, its crotchetty interpretations of Scripture,
and many other features, presents a striking
parallel to many modern sects. In addition to
the original authorities already quoted, there
may be consulted Ceillier, ii. 427, et passim;
Waleh, Kctzerhist. ii. 185; Natal. Alex. ed.
Mansi, saec. iii. cap. iii. art. iv. ; Till. Mem.;
Bingham, Opp. t. vi. 248, 570; viii. 233, ed.
Lend. 1840; Gieseler, H. E. i. 284, ed. Clark;
Neander, H. E. ed. Bohn, i. 330-345.
[G. T. S.]
NOVATIANU8 (Novatianos, Cyprian,
Ep. xliv. ; Hoouiros, Euscb. H. E. vi. 43 ;
NovdVor, Soc. H. E. iv. 28. Lardner has ap-
pended a lengthened note to the 47th chapter
of his Credibility to prove that Eusebius and the
Greeks in general were correct in calling the
Roman presbyter Novatus, not Novatianus. He
attributes the origin of the latter name to
Cyprian, who called the Roman presbyter No-
vatianus, as being a follower of his own rebel-
lious priest, Novatus of Carthage). Novatian,
the founder of Novatianism, is said by Philo-
storgius to have been a Phrygian by birth, a
notion which may have originated in the
popularity of his system in Phrygia and its
neighbourhood (Lightfoot's Colossians, p. 98).
He was, before his conversion, a philosopher, but
we cannot certainly determine the sect to which
he belonged, though from a comparison of the
language of Cyprian in Epiet. Iv. sec 13, ad
Antonian., with the Novatian system itself, we
should be inclined to fix upon the Stoic The
circumstances of his conversion and baptism arc
stated by Pope Cornelius in his letter to Kabios
of Antioch (Eusebius, I. c), but we must accept
bis statements with much caution. He was a
very tetchy man, and his narration was evidently
coloured by his feelings. The facts of the case
appear to be thus. He was converted after he
Digitized by
Google
NOVATIANUS
had come to manhood, and received clinical bap-
tism, bat was never confirmed, which famishes
Cornelius with one of his principal accusations.
Notwithstanding this defect he was admitted to
the clerical order, and, according to a tradition
preserved in the treatise of Kulogius of Alex-
andria against his followers, he was for a
time archdeacon of Rome, and was ordained
presbyter to deprive him of that position and
its customary claim to succeed to the see when
vacant (cf. Neander, II. E. v. 158). This tra-
dition, however, is contradicted by the state-
ment of Cornelius, who, though an enemy,
admits that his predecessor Fabianus had
considered him so worthy of the office of
presbyter as to have ordained him thereto in
opposition to the whole body of the clergy who
were opposed to the ordination of clinics. Nova-
tion's talents, especially bis eloquence, to which
even Cyprian witnesses {Ep. lx. 3), rapidly
brought him to the front, and he became the
most influential presbyter of the Roman church.
in this character, the see being vacant, he
wrote Ep. xxx., to the Carthaginian church,
touching the treatment of the lapsed, while
the anonymous author of the treatise against
Novatian, written A.D. 255, and included by
Erasmus among Cyprian's works, describes him
while remaining in the church as "having
been a precious vessel, an house of the Lord,
who, as long as he was in the church, be-
wailed the faults of other men as bis own,
bore the burdens of his brethren as the apostle
directs, and by his exhortations strengthened
such as were weak in the faith.'' This testimony
sufficiently disposes of the accusation of Cor-
nelius that Novatianus denied the faith in time
of persecution, declaring himself " an admirer of
a different philosophy." In the earlier part of
A.D. 250 he approved of a moderate policy
towards the lapsed, bat towards the close of the
year he changed his mind, and seems to have
taken op such extreme views that the martyr
Moses, who probably suffered on the last day of
250, condemned his course (see Art. on Cyprian,
Vol. I. p. 743 of this Dictionary). The chronology
of this period, which presents many difficulties,
will be found amply discussed there and in
Lipsius {Chronol. d. Bom. Bisch. pp. 200-210).
Id March, 251, Cornelius was consecrated bishop
(Lipsius, /. c. p. 205). This roused the stricter
party to action (Cyprian, Ep. xlvi.). Novatus,
the Carthaginian agitator, having meanwhile
arrived at Rome, flung himself into their ranks,
urging them to take the final step of setting up
an opposition bishop. For this purpose be made
a journey into distant parts of Italy, whence he
brought back three bishops who consecrated
Novatian [Novatos]. Their names may possibly
have been Marcellus, Alexander of Aquileia, and
Agamemnon of Tibur (cf. Eulogii Cord. Nova-
tianos, in Phot. Cod. 182, 208; Euseb. //. E. vi.
43 ; Theodoret, Haeret. Fab. iii. 5). On the other
hand Bingham suggests Opp. Lond. 1840, t. viii.
p. 235, that Trophimus was the name of the lead-
ing consecrotor, quoting Cyprian {Ep. lv. sec 8).
After his consecration he despatched the usual
epistles announcing it to the bishops of the chief
sees, to Cyprian, Dionysius of Alexandria, Fabias
of Antioch. Cyprian rejected his communion at
once. Dionysius wrote . exhorting him to retire
from his schismatical position (Euseb. H. E. vi.
NOVATIANUS
59
46). Fabius, however, so inclined to his side that
Dionysius addressed to him a letter on the sub-
ject ; and two bishops, Firmilianus of Cappadocia
and Theoctistus of Palestine, wrote to Dionysius
requesting his presence at the council of Antioch
to restrain tendencies in that direction (Euseb.
vi. 44, 46). In the latter part of the same year
Novatian was formally excommunicated by a
synod of sixty bishops at Rome. He then threw
himself into the work of organising a distinct
church, rebaptizing all who came over to his
side (Cyprian, Ep. lxxiii. 2), and despatching
letters and emissaries to the most distant parts
of the East and West (Soc. H. E. iv. 28). His
subsequent career is buried in darkness, save that
Socrates informs us that he suffered martyrdom
under Valerian (Socrates, H. E. iv. 28 ; cf. the
apocryphal Acts of Novatian included in the
treatise of Eulogius noticed above). Novatian
was a copious writer, as we learn from Jerome
{de Vir. Must. c. lxx.), where we have the
following list of his works: "De Poscha, de
Sabbato, de Circumcisione, de Sacerdote, de Ora-
tione, de Instantia, de Attalo, de Cibis Jndaicis,
et de Trinitate," only the two lost of which are
now extant. That on Jewish meats was written
at some place of retreat from persecution. The
Jewish controversy seems to have been very hot
just then at Rome, and Novatian wrote his
treatise to refute their contention about dis-
tinction of meats, lie points out that the old
law prohibited certain meats to restrain Jewish
intemperance, and to reprove in man certain
vices mystically depicted in animals (cf. cap. iii.
with Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 18). He shews,
however, that all such shadows have been done
away in Christ, and that Christians have now
liberty to eat everything save what is offered to
idols. Jerome describes his work on the Trinity
as an epitome of Tertullian's, and as attributed
by some to Cyprian (Hieron. Apol. coat. Rufin.
lib. ii. Opp. t. iv. p. 415). It proves Novatian
to have been a diligent student, as its arguments
are identical with those of Justin Martyr in his
Dialog, cum Tryph. cap. exxvii. ; Tertnll. adv.
Prax. cap. xiv.-xxv. ; Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. 16 ;
v. 11, 12. He deals first with the absolute per-
fection of the Father, His invisibility, &c, then
discusses the anthropomorphic expressions of the
Scriptures, laying down that " such things were
said about God indeed, bet they are not to be
imputed to God but to the people, it is not
God who is limited, bat the perception of the
people." In cap. vii. he declares that even the
terms Spirit, Light, Love, are only in an imper-
fect degree applicable to God. In cap. ix.-xxviii.
he discusses the true doctrine of the Incarna-
tion, explaining, like Clement and others, the
theophanies of the Old Testament as manifesta-
tions of Christ, and refuting the doctrine of the
Sabellians, or Artemonites, according to Neander
(//. E. ii. 298), which had just then developed
itself. He ends the discussion by explaining the
doctrine of the Holy Spirit, wherein he is
thought by some to have fallen into error. He
was quoted indeed by the Macedonians of the next
century as supporting their view (cf. Fabric. Bib.
Graec. xii. 565 and references noted there ;
Bull's D-.f. of Mcene Creed, ii. 476, Oxon. 1852 ;
Jvdg. of Cath. Ck pp. 9, 137, 291, Oxon. 1855).
Larduer (Credib. cap. 47, t. iii. p. 242)
shews that Novatian did -not . accept - the
Digitized by
Google
60
NOVATU8
Epistle to the Hebrews as Scripture, since he
neverquotes any texts out of it, though there were
several which favoured his cause, notably Heb.
vi. 4-8. His followers, however, in the next
century, did use them. Some hare even thought
that Novatian was the author of the Refutation
of all Heresies (Bunsen, Christ, and Mankind, i.
480). The works of Novatian were published by
Welchmann, Oxon, 1724 ; by Jackson, London,
1728, and in Galland. Bib. PP. t. iii. They
have been also translated in the volume of
Clark's Ante-Nicene Lib. containing the second
part of St. Cyprian's writings, Edinburgh, 1869.
Jackson's edition is the best. It was severely
criticised by S. Crellius in a work styled
Artemonii defensio emendat. in Novatiano factor,
cont. J. Jackson, Lond. 1729. [Fortpnatot ;
Maximus; Moses; Evakistus ; Dionysius;
Fabius ; Nicostratus (1).] (Forbesii Instruct.
Histor. Theolog. p. 666 : Lumper, Hist. SS. PP.
viii. 259 ; Natal. Alex. ed. Mansi, saec. iii. cap. i.
art. iv. ; Welch's JTetzerhist. ii. 185 ; Neander,
H. E. ed. Bohn, pp. 330-335 ; Ceillier, ii. 426 ;
Gieseler, H. E. i. 284, ed. Clark.) [G. T. S.]
NOVATUS (1), presbyter of Carthage. He
seems to have been an original opponent of
Cyprian's election, bnt is first mentioned by him
in Ep. xiv. sec. 5, with three other presbyters —
Donatus, Fortunatus, and Gordius — as having
written about some question to Cyprian then in
retirement. This was, doubtless, touching the
request of the confessors, to have peace granted
to certain of the lapsed which, in Ep. 50,
Cyprian refuses until he had taken counsel with
the presbyters and faithful laity. Cyprian, in
this latter epistle, reproves certain presbyters,
evidently Novatus and his companions, who,
"considering neither the fear of God nor the
honour of the bishop," had already granted
peace to the lapsed. In Ep. xliii., writing to
the church of Carthage, he compares Novatus
and his associates to the five chief commis-
sioners entrusted with the conduct of the per-
secution, and, as it seems, intimates that they
threatened to raise a riot upon his appearance
from his place of retirement. In Ep. Iii. 3
Cyprian, writing to Cornelius, gives a very bad
character of Novatus. He describes him as one
"ever eager for innovation, of insatiable
avarice, puffed up with pride, always known for
evil to the bishops here, a heretic, and per-
fidious," again, as "having robbed orphans,
defrauded the church, permitted his father to
die of hunger, having kicked his wife when
pregnant, and having thus become the murderer
of his own child." The critic will be apt to
think that Cyprian's feelings must have here
coloured his judgment, as such a bishop as he
was could scarcely have tolerated such a bad
man in the presbyteratc. He, in the same
epistle, describes him as having made his
follower Felicissimns a deacon, and then "at
Rome committing greater and more grievous
crimes. He who at Carthage made a deacon
against the church, there made a bishop." The
Liberian catalogue in like manner describes
Novatus as ordaining Novatian in Rome and Nico-
stratus in Africa, though Cornelius (Euseb.
H. E. vi. 43) tells us Novatian was ordained by
three bishops from distant parts of Italy.
Neander (if. IS. L 313, ed. Bohn), concluding on
NUADHA
the contrary, from Cyprian's words, that
Novatus, " spurning the yoke of episcopal
monarchy," himself ordained Felicissimus.
Cyprian evidently merely means that Novatus
brought about the ordination of both the deacon
and bishop. At the same time, Ep. xliii. sec. 2,
proves that Cyprian's wrath was specially stirred
by some anti-episcopal innovations of Novatus
and his party. What their character was it
wonld be now impossible to determine (cf. Bing-
ham, Dissert, on 8th Nicene canon in Opp. London,
1840, t. viii. p. 417). After the consecration of
Novatian, Novatus was sent by him, together
with Evaristus, Nicostratus, Primus and Dio-
nysius to organize his party in Africa (Cyprian,
Ep. 1.). After this he disappears from our sight.
(Compare Dr. Posey's note upon him, appended
to Cyprian, Ep. Iii. in Oxford, Lib. of Fathers.
See also Milman, Lat. Christ, t. i. pp. 60-62,
ed. Lond. 1867. On the latter page he remarks
in a note, " We are on historical ground, or what
a myth might be made out of these two innova-
tors — Novatus and Novatian.") [NovATlAXua;
CrpMAs.] " [G. T. SJ
NOVATUS (2), bp. of Thnmogade (Hartel —
as also some Inscriptions ; Thamugade, more com-
mon (hod. Timgftd), near Lambaesis in Numidia,
afterwards a headquarters of Donatism (vid.
Morcelli) Sentt. Episcopor. 4 in Syn. Carth. sub
Cyp. de Bap. 3). His expressions as one of the
oldest of the eighty-seven bishops seem to affect
our estimate of the date of the Agrippincnsian
council. He could scarcely have called its
members " sanctissimae memoriae " had not the-
generation passed, nor " collegae " if they had
been beyond his memory. [E. W. B.J
NOVATUS (8), called Catuoliccs, a monk
probably of the 4th century, author of a short
Latin piece, Sententia de Humilitate et Obediential
et de Calcanda Sapcrbia. (Patr. Lat. xviii. 67 ;
Ceillier, vi. 331.) [C. H.J
NOVATUS of Sitifa. [Navatcs.]
NOVELLUS, bishop of Tyzica, a small
town of Proconsular Africa, Thisica of Ptolemy,
between Tabraca and the river Bagradas (Ptol.
iv. 3-31). The see appears to have lasted as-
late as A.D. 449, for a bishop of Tizzica was
present at the Lateran council held in that
year (Booking, Not. Dign. i. p. 642). Novellus is
mentioned by Augustine as being, together with
Faustinas of Tuburbo, open to a charge from
the Donatist point of view, of the same kind
as Caecilianus, yet not condemned by his party
on that account, probably because both he and
Faustinus adopted Donatist views. Augustine
does not mention the charge, but it was no doubt
one of having received consecration from a
"traditor." (Aug. ad Don. post Coll. xxii. 38;
Morcelli, Afr. Chr. i. 342.) Kaustinus (4).]
[H. W. P.}
NOVELLUS, bishop of Complutum, is
mentioned in A.D. 579 by J. Biclarensis (CAroi*.
in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxii. 866) as an illustrious
person. Nothing more is known of him. At
the third council of Toledo in a.d. 589 the see
was vacant (Esp. Sag. vii. 179). [F. D.}
NUADHA (Nuad, -datus, -dot, Nuat,
Nodtat), abbat, classed in recent times among
Digitized by
Google
NUB
the bishops and archbishops, of Armagh, has a
memoir by Colgan (Acta S3. 373), Dt S. Nuadato
archiepiscopo Ardmachano; is noticed by O'Hanlon
(/r. £& ii. 637-8). He was probably an anchoret
at Lochuamha in Lower Breffhy, and succeeded
Torbach in the primacy at Armagh A.D. 812 (four
Mast, by O'Don. i. 419; Cotton, Fast. iii. 7).
The Irish Annals record that in A.D. 815 (Ann.
Ult. and Four Moat. a.d. 810) he went to Con-
naught, for the rectification apparently of some
abuses. He died A.D. 816. His feast is Feb. 19.
[J. G.]
NUB. [Akcph, Paesis, Poemen.]
NUDD (1) ap Ceidio, Welsh saint of the 6th
century, member of St. llltyd's college (Rees, W.
S3. 208 : Williams, lolo MSS. 503, 530).
[J. G.]
NUDD (2), bishop of Llandaff early in the
9th century (Lib. Land, by Rees, 626), perhaps
Xudd the " reader," and clerical witness of many
charters, but probably Novis or Nywys, who
died A.D. 873 (».). * [J. G.]
NUDD (3) (Hael), classed sometimes among
the Welsh saints, one of the men of the North in
the beginning of the 6th century, a member of St.
llltyd's college, and perhaps founder of Llysvron-
aud'd ( Triads in Myv. Arch. ii. 3, 14, 70 ; Skene,
Tour Ane. B. Wal. ii. 457 ; Williams, lolo MSS.
542 et ml.). [J. G.]
NUMENIUS (1), philosopher; vid. Diet.
G. t B. Biog.
NUMENIUS (2), a disciple of Lucian the
martyr. He was one of a brilliant band who
imbibed from him Arion principles. Among
them was Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of
Oialcedon, and Leoutius of Antioch. They were
Uke the rest of the Arian party rather weak
ia Christian principle. "They yielded to the
violence of tyrants so far as to offer sacrifice
to the gods of the heathen; but afterwards
made amends for their lapse, Lucian their
master himself assisting to bring them to
repentance." (Philostorgii E. H. ii. 14 ; Tillem.
t. 770). [G. T. S.]
NUMENIUS (3), a primate addressed by the
famous ascetic Nilus on the benefit of studying
Holy Scripture, Ep. lib. ii. 198, where Kilus
shews that he favoured the mystical mode of
interpreting Holy Scripture. [Nilus (3).]
[G. T. S.]
NUMERIA (Cyp. Ep. 31, 32), sister of
Celertncs, unless her real name was Etecusa,
q. r. [E. W. B.]
NUMERIANUS (1), emperor, A.D. 284.
31. Aurelius Numerianus, the younger son of the
emperor Carus, was associated with his father
in the war against the Sarmatians and Persians,
which was the one conspicuous event in his short
reign. He and his brother Carinus received the
title of Caesar, and while the latter was left at
Rome outraging the feelings of the senate and of
all the decent citizens by a licentiousness like that
of Qagabalus and a cruelty like that of Domi-
tian, and attracting the admiration of the popu-
lace by spectacles of unprecedented magnificencr,
the former accompanied his father in his Eastern
expedition. On the death of Carus, as it was
reported, struck by lightning, the two brothers
NUMERIANUS
61
were acknowledged as emperors both by the
army and the senate. The superstition of the
troops saw however, in the manner of the em-
peror's death, an indication of the wrath of the
gods at the attempted extension of the empire
beyond the Tigris, and clamorously called on
Nnmerian to lead them home. The young em-
peror, amiable, cultivated, with the tastes of a
poet and an orator, had not strength to resist
them, and they began their march. During
their eight months' march to Heraclea on the
European side of the Propontis, he was scarcely
seen, and was carried in a litter, suffering from
an inflammation of the eyes, brought on by ex-
posure to the sun, or by his ceaseless weeping
for his father's death. All business was trans-
acted in his name by his father-in-law, Annius
Aper, who held the office of praetorian prefect.
Before long a report spread that the emperor
was dead. The soldiers rushed into the imperial
tent and found his corpse. Suspicion fell on
Aper, who was arrested and taken in chains to
Chalcedon. The generals and tribunes of the
army held a council, in which Diocletian was
elected emperor. Addressing the legions, he ap-
pealed to the " all-seeing Sun " as witness that
he was guiltless of the death of Numerianus, and
ordering Aper to be brought before his tribunal,
pointed him out as the murderer, and, without
waiting for his defence against the charge,
plunged his sword into his breast. Carinus, still
at Rome, prepared for resistance, and the two
armies met in Moesia, near the banks of the
Danube. The conflict, fought at Margus, was
for a time doubtful as to its issue, but the mur-
der of Carinus on the field of battle, by a tribune
whose wife he had seduced, left the victory with
Diocletian (Vopisc. Numer. ; Aurel. Vict. Epit.
38 ; De Caes. 38 ; Eutrop. ix. 12 ; Zonar. xii. 30;
Gibbon, c xii.). [E. H. P.]
NUMERIANUS (2), praeses of Cilicia, in
the early part of the Diocletian persecution.
His full name, according to the Greek version of
the Acts of Tarachus, was Flavins Gaius Numeria-
nus Maximus (Ruinart, Acta Sine. p. 422). The
action of this official has given M. Ed. le Blant
some of his best instances, shewing the use we
can make of the acts of the martyrs to illustrate
Roman legal procedure. (Le Blant, Les Actus
des Mart. pp. 27-29, cf. p. 121, Paris, 1882.)
[G. T. S.]
NUMERIANUS (3), bishop in the district
of Constantinople, bearer of a letter from pope
Zosimus (Ep. et Deer. No. 16) to the bishops
throughout Byzacene A.D. 418 (Ceillier, Aut.
Sacr. vii. 538). [J. G.]
NUMERIANUS (4), ST. (Memomanus,
Mctneeianus), July 5, bishop of Treves (Browe-
rus, Aniiq. Trevirens. i. 355, ii. Chr. Index p. 8;
Boll. Acta SS. 5 Jul. ii. 231 ; Qall. Chr. xiii.
385), his period being c. 657-670 (Brow.) or
c. 640-666 (G. C), while as to his exact posi-
tion in the series, authorities are not agreed (cf.
Mabillon, Annal. 0. B. t. i. pp. 487, 507, 604
and art. Hildulfus). Browerus can find
nothing of him except his monumental inscrip-
tion recording his day in the church of St.
Helen at Treves founded in the 11th century.
But there are likewise charters mentioning him.
One attributed to himself, c. 664 or 677, grant-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
62
NUMERIUS
ing a privilegium to abbat Deodatus (Gall. Chr.
ziii. lustrum, p. 291 ; Mabillon, Annal. 0. B. i.
69ti ; Brequigny, Diplom. num. 360, ed. Pardes-
sus) is spurious as shewn at length by Bre-
quigny (t. i. Proleg. pp. 100, 298). A charter
of Sigebert II. to abbat Remaclus, 648, mentions
him in one recension (Breq. num. 313), and
omits him in another (Acta j'S. 1 Feb i. 235 A).
A charter of Childeric II., 667, mentions him
(Breq. 359; Acta SS. 1 Feb. i. 235 k) as Me-
morianns. [C. H.]
NUMERIUS, a deacon of Nuceria, into
whose fitness for the episcopal office (sacerdotium)
the subieacon Peter was requested by pope
Gregory the Great to examine, a.d. 593 (Greg,
lib. iii. ind. xi. ep. 40 in Pat. Lot. lxxvii. ; Jam?,
R. P. num. 880). [C. H.]
NUMIDICUS, African confessor in Decian
persecution, left for dead after stoning and burn-
ing, but recovered by his daughter. His wife
perished. He was a presbyter, and Cyprian
enrols him in the Carthaginian Cleros as an
honour, assigning him a seat in the circle, pro-
mises his elevation (to episcopate), and, Ep. 41,
associates him with his former commissary
Rogatian and the bishops Galdoxius, Hkb-
culanus, and Victor in the commission for
relief of Carthaginian sufferers which led to the
open schism of Felicissimus. In Ep. 43 he is
one of the main stays while Cyprian is away.
[E. W. B.]
NUMIDIUS, bishop present as an African
deputy at the council of Aquileia, A.u. 381.
(Ambros. Opp. ii. 786, in Migne'a Pat. Lot. xvi.
916, 934.) The acts of this council as there set
forth have been challenged as spurious, bnt are
accepted by the Benedictine editor and by Hefele,
Counc. ii. 376, Clark's translation. [G. T. S.]
He and his colleague Felix, who was no donbt
the bishop of Selemsela [Felix (150)], spoke in
favour of the Nicene faith. This bishop was
no doubt Numidius I. of Maxula, who, together
with Felix of Selemsela, was a prominent speaker
at the council of Carthage in 390 (Hard. i. 951).
He appears also at the conference of 411, where
his Donntist opponent is one Felix (Collat. Carth.
cognit. i. 112, in Hard. i. 1077). He may be
assumed to have been the Numidius who stands
first in the address to pope Innocent at the council
of Carthage in 416 (Hard. i. 1215) against the
Pelagians (Tillem. vi. 157, xiii. 304, 395, 690;
Morcelli i. 220; Ceill. iv. 648). A second
Numidius of Maxula was present at the council
of Carthage in 525 (Hard. ii. 1082 ; Morcelli,
i. 220). [C. H.J
NUMULENU8 (Mummulenus), Gallicnoblc,
father of Hobo and Bodegisilus, was called Sues-
sionicus by Greg. Tur. (Hint. Franc, vi. c. 45, x.
c. 45, ap. Pat. Lat. lxxi.), is highly praised by
Fortunatus Venantius (Miscell. vii. c. 14, x. c.
2), who addresses a poem and consolatory letter
to him on the death of his daughter (Pat. Lat.
lxxxviii. 251, 322, sq. ; Ceillier, Aut. Soar. xi.
409). [J. G.]
NUNCUPATUS, a presbyter who carried
information to Charibert king of Paris of the
deposition of Emerius bishop of Saintes and was
banished (Greg. Tur. If. F. iv. 26). [U. H.]
NUB8INUS
NUNDINARlUS(l), a deacon, who for some
cause unknown was degraded by Silvanus bishop
of Cirta. He endeavoured to obtain restoration
through the influence of Purpurius bishop of
Limata, Fortis, and Sabinus, who each of them
wrote letters to Silvnnus and to the church of
Cirta, exhorting reconciliation, but recommend-
ing secrecy in the matter. The dangerous facts
to be thus concealed were (1) the act of '• tradi-
tion " on the part of Silvanus, (2) the bribery
by means of which Victor obtained his ordina-
tion, whose proceeds, 20 folles, he said were
divided among themselves by the bishops, (3)
the corrupt means used by Purpurius and Sil-
vanus to obtain their bishoprics, and (4) the
money given by Lucilla for obtaining the ap-
pointment of Majorinus. Of the truth of all
these charges Nundinarius gave evidence before
Zenophilus, and was supported by other wit-
nesses, a.d. 320. (Aug. Unit. Eocl. 18, 46 ; c
Crete, iii. 28,32; 29,33; Ep. 53,3; Opt. i.
14 ; Man. Yet. Don. iv. ed. Oberthur.) [Lucilla,
Fobtis, Crescentianus, Satubkinus, Sil-
vanus.] [H. W. P.]
NUNDINARIUS (2), bishop of Barcelona,
c. A.D. 465, by appointing Irenaeus his successor,
caused an appeal to be made to pope Hilary and
the enactment of five disciplinary canons
[Ibenaeus (10)] (Hilarins, Epp. i. ii. ap.
Pat. Lat. lviii. ; Hard. ii. 801 ; Florex, Esp.
Sag. xxix. 114; Tillem. xvi. 45; Ceillier, Aut.
Sacr. x. 339). [J. G.]
NUNNA (NUN), a king of the South Saxons,
who in concert with his kinsman Ine king of
the West Saxons carried on a successful war in
710 against Gerent (called Uuthgirete by Ethel-
werd) king of the Britons (A. S. C. ann. 710 ;
Flor. Wig. ann. 710 ; Ethelwerd, Chron. ii. 12 ;
Hen. Hunt. lib. iv. ; L'Estorie des Angloit, ver.
1629 ; for which passages see M. H. B. 326, 507,
540 c. 724 a, 784). In the charters of Kemble's
Cod. Dipt, he is found subscribing in 692 as king
of the South Saxons a charter of Nothelm
king of the South Saxons (num. 995) ; as king
of the South Saxons he grants land to Beadufrid
and his brethren dwelling in the island of
Selsey, where Nunna desires to be buried (999) ;
he grants land, in 725 to bishop Eadbert (1000);
in an undated charter (1001) he grants to
Berhfrid a servant of God lands in the plane
called Piperingas, near the river Tarente
[Osmund]. [C. H.]
NUNNECHIUS. [Nohnichiot.]
NUNNINUS (Numnius), a tribune of
Auvergne in the time of queen Teudechildis,
said to have been preternaturally punished for
chipping the tomb of St. Germanus of Auxerre
(Greg. Tur. Glor. Conf. cap. 41). [C. H.]
NUNNIO, a courtier of Childebert I. king or
Paris (Greg. Tur. Vit. Pat. cap. it 1). [Patro-
CLUS.] [C. H. j
NURSINUS, a priest said to have seen in
the hour of his death the apostles Peter and Paul
(Greg. Mag. Dial. iv. 11 ; Ceill. xi. 478).
[C.H.]
Digitized by
Google
NYOTAGES
NYCTAGES, heretics described by Isldorus
Hi'spal., as opposing vigils on the ground that
God made the day for work and the night for
sleep. They took up merely the same ground
as Vigilantins against Jerome and the subdeacon
Timotheus against St. Nilus, cf. Nili Epist. i. 26.
(Isidor. Hispal. de Ecclee. Offic. i. 22, in Mjgne's
Pat. Lat. t. 83, col. 759.) [G. T.S.]
NYMPHA, a Tirgin saint of about the fifth
century, honoured in Tuscany and at Rome
(Peter Natalia, lib. r, c 42, p. 197 ; Tilletn. iii.
342, 343, 709> [C. H.]
NYMPHIDIANTJ8, FLAVIAN (J8, a
seholasticua of Philadelphia, who renounced
Quartodecimanism at the council of Ephesus
(Mansi, iv. 1355, v. 6X0, vi. 893). [C. H.]
NYMPHODORA, martyr in Bithynia in
the reign of Maiimian, with her sisters Meno-
dora and Metrodora (vid. those names in D. C. A.
and Tillem. v. 160). [C. H.]
NYNIA, NYNYANE. [Nijoih.]
OAN, princeps, that is, abbat, of Egg in the
Hebrides, died a.d. 724. {Ann. Ult.; Reeves,
S. Adamn. 307, 382.) [J. G.]
OBINTJ8 (OtriNT/s), the fourth name in the
mythical list of the British bishops or arch-
bishops of London (Godwin, de Praesui'ibua, ed.
Richardson, p. 170; Ussher, Antiq. ed. 1639,
p. 67.) The compiler of the list in which the
name occurs was Joscelin of Fumes, a monk
of the 12th century, of whose life and materials
nothing satisfactory seems to be ascertained ;
and the MS. from which Ussher and the other
writers excerpted it has not been recognised
(Hardy, Cat. Mat. i. 64; Fabricius, BMioVi.
Lat. ». v.y [S.]
OCCILIANU8, addressed by Gregory the
Great in a.d. 599, on his appointment as
tribnne of Hydruntum or Otranto by the exarch,
requesting him to redress the wrougs done by
his predecessor Viator to the inhabitants of
Gallipoli, by exacting forced services from them,
and otherwise oppressing them, about which
Sabinus, or Sabinianus, bishop of the place, had
written to complain. From another letter it
ar-pears that Occilianus had personally visited
Gregory (Epp. ix. 99, 100, 102). [F. D.]
OCEANUS, a Roman of noble birth in the
4th and 5th centuries, connected by birth with
Fabiola (q. v.) and the Julian family, and by
friendship with Jerome, Augustine and Pam-
machins. Jerome speaks of him as his son (Ep.
lxxvii. 1, ed. Vail, and lxix. 10), but as the
spiritual father of Marcellinus, the Roman
governor (Ep. lxxvi. 1, a.d. 411). He was,
perhaps, like his friend Pammai-hius, a senator
(comp. their letter among Jerome's lxxxiii. with
his expression, Ep. xcvii. 3, Vos Christiani Sena-
tns lamina). He probably became known to
Jerome during his stay in Rome in 383-5. He
OOLEATINUS
63
was a zealous upholder of orthodoxy and strict
discipline, and first comes to our knowledge by
a public protest which he made against Carterius,
a Spanish bishop who, having married before
his baptism and lost his wife, had, as a Christian,
married a second wife. Jerome points out that
there is no law or principle condemning such
marriages, and urges him to silence. This was
about the year 397. Either in that or the
previous year, Oceanus, in company with Fabiola,
visited Jerome at Bethlehem, whence they were
driven by the fear of the invasion of the Huns.
While there, he appears to have made acquain-
tance with Rufinus, who, according to Jerome's
insinuation (Adv. Rvf. iii. 4), had an Origenistic
document placed in Oceanus's room in Fabiola's
house, with a view to identify him with that
tendency. Kufinus having gone to Rome the
same year (397), and having published shortly
afterwards his edition of the n*pl 'Apx&r,
Oceanus and Pammachins watched his actions
with critical eyes, and, on the appearance of the
work, wrote to Jerome (Jer. Ep. 83) requesting
him to deny the insinuation of Rufinus that he
was only completing a work begun by Jerome,
and to furnish them with a translation of
Origen's work as it really was. Oceanus, no
doubt, took part in the subsequent proceedings
which led to the condemnation of Origenism at
Rome. On the death of Fabiola, about 399,
Jerome wrote to Oceanus his Epitaphium of her
(Ep. 77), accompanied by his exposition, which
had been intended for her, of the 42 resting-
places of the Israelites in the desert. At a
later time, in 411, Oceanus, who had maintained
his correspondence with Jerome, and possessed
his books against Rufinus and other of his
works, interested himself specially in the ques-
tions which arose in connexion with the Pelagian
controversy, on the origin of souls. Jerome
writes to Marcellinus and Anapsychius(£p. 126)
who had consulted him on this subject, referring
them to Oceanus as one thoroughly "learned
in the law of the Lord " and capable of instruct-
ing them. Oceanus was also in correspondence
with Augustine, who writes to him in the year
416 on the two subjects on which he had
differed from Jerome, the origin of souls, and
the passage in Galatians relating to the reproof
of St. Peter by St. Paul at Antioch. Augustine
speaks also of another work of Jerome's on the
resurrection which had been brought by Orosius
to Oceanus, and of letters which he had received
from him. The tenor of his letter indicates his
deep respect and consideration. Oceanus is
placed by Migne with Pammachins, among the
ecclesiastical writers (Patrologia, vol. 20) ; but
no writing of his has come down to us except
the letter to Jerome {Ep. 83). [W. H. F.]
OCIATjDUS, disciple of St. Richarius,
whom c. 645 he succeeded as abbat of Centula
or St. Riquier in Picardy. (Alcuin, Vit. S.
Richar. § 14, in Pat. Lat. ci. 691 ; Gall. Chr. x.
1243.) ' [C. H.]
OCLEATINUS, forbidden by Gregory the
Great in A.D. 591, in letters to Severus, bishop
of Ficulum, and to the governor and inhabitants
of Ariminum (Epp. 1, 57, 58), on what grounds
it is not stated, to be chosen bishop of that city.
[F.D.]
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
84
OCTAVIANA
OCTAVIANA, wife of Hesperius, used her
hasband's influence with the usurper Maximus
in favour of a Tertullianist teacher whom she
liad brought with her from Africa to Rome.
<Praedest. Haer. 86.) [G. S.]
OCTAVIANUS, an archdeacon and martyr
in the Arian persecution under Hunneric. (Greg.
Turon. Hist. Franc, ii. 3.) [G. T. S.]
OOTAVIUS (1). [Minucids Felix.]
OCTAVIU8 (2), Nov. 20 (Usuard. Mart.),
one of the martyrs of the Thebaean legion, com-
memorated, together with his companions Ad-
ventitius and Solutor, at Turin. They were the
subject of a homily by St. Maximus, bishop of
Turin. [Maximus (16).] (Horn. 81, De Natali
SS. ifartyrum Oclav., Adcent., et Sotut. in Pat.
Lat. lvii. 427). [C. H.]
OCTAVIUS (8), a presbyter of Sirmium,
who, c. 366, subscribed with Innooektius (28).
[C. H.]
OCTAVIUS (4), a bishop at the council of
Nisroes in 394 (Hefele, ii. 405). In 401 he and
two other bishops, Remigins and Treferius, were
acquitted at the council of Turin (can. III.) on
the charge of having performed some unlawful
ordinations (Hardouin, i. 958). [C. H.]
OCTOBER. [Lyoss, Martyrs op.]
ODA, widow, said by some to have been
daughter of Childcbert IK., king of the Franks.
She was married to Bogo or Boggus, duke of
Aquitaine, and after his death, A.D. 688, devoted
herself to religion, and specially to active works
of charity to the suffering and poor. She died
about a.d. 722, and her relics are preserved at
Amay. Her feast is Oct. 23. The authority
is a late Life by an anonymous writer, given
with valuable commentarius praevius by the
Bollandists {Acta SS. Oct. x. 139), but she is a
favourite with French writers as the pattern
of chaste widowhood. (Chevalier, Scpert. Moyen
Age, 1661). [J. G.]
ODDA (Oda), virgin, patron of Rhoda in
Brabant, commemorated Nov. 27. She is called
daughter of a king of Scotia ; Dempster says, of
Eugenius V. In her legend there is nothing
distinctive beyond her residence at Rhoda in the
<5th or 8th century, and the elevation of her
remains by bishop Othbert in 1103. (Dempster,
H. E. Scot. ii. 509 ; O'Hanlon, Jr. SS. ii. 72,
giving a useful resume 1 .) [J. G.]
ODDO, of Mercia. [Doddo.]
ODHBAN (Odranus, Oran, Otteran) is
a name often met with in Irish hagiology,
and perhaps is allied to the Latin Adrianus.
<Kor lists of Odhran or Odranus, see Colgan,
Acta SS. 372 n. lf , 540 n. 1 )
(1) Odhran, monk of Iona under St.
Columba, to whom he was closely related. His
feast is Oct. 27. Colgan (T. T. 506 c. 3) calls
him monk of Deny, and Skene {Celt. Scot. 35 n.)
might accept the gloss of Aengus as identify-
ing him with Odhran of Lattaragh, but the
dates prevent it. Of his life there is no account
till the close, when the curious legend is told by
ODILO
O'Donnell (Colgan, T. T. 411 c. 12) of Odhran's
choice to die and be the first of St. Columba'a
followers to take corporal possession of Iona.
His death is assigned to 563, the year of St.
Columba's arrival. His fame in the West of
Scotland is attested by the number of dedica-
tions. On Iona the Reilig Odbrain, and St.
Oran's chapel, dating from about the 12th
century and said to have been the place of
burial for the Scotch, Irish, and Norwegian
kings, are well known. (On St. Odhran, see
Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 35 ; Boll. Acta SS. 27 Oct.
xii. 342-4, with full Sylloge Historica by De
Buck trying to discriminate the many Odrani
and believing this to be St. Adnmnan's Brito ;
Reeves, & Adamn. 203 et al., ed. 1857.)
(2) Odhiian, disciple and successor of St.
Senan at Iniscathay in the Shannon about A.D.
580. (Cotton, Fast. i. 431 ; Colgan, Acta SS.
537.) [J. G.]
ODILBERTUS (Edelbertus, Odbertos,
OUBERTUS, AUBERTUS, ALIPERTCS, OLDt-
jiertus, Oldepertus), archbishop of Milan, to
whom Charlemagne addressed a letter of ques-
tions on the subject of Baptism (Baluze, Capitu-
laria, t. i. p. 483). He presided from 805 to 814
(Ughelli, rtal. Sac. iv. 75; Cappelletti, Le
Chiese d' Hal. xi. 134, 202 ; Ccillier, xii. 185,
238). [C. H.]
ODILIA (Odila, Othilia, Ottilia), virgin
and abbess, has an abundant literature, but her
biography is based on a life of the eleventh cen-
tury, which is entirely unhistorical (Mabillon,
A. SS. O.S.B. iii. 2, pp. 441, ed. 1734. As patron
of Alsace, and specially of Hohenburg, where her
relics are still largely resorted to, she is held in
great repute on the confines of France and Ger-
many. Very briefly stated, tradition represents
her as daughter of Adalric or Ethico, duke of
Alsace, and Berchsind his wife. Being born
blind, she was exposed by her father's order, but
afterwards rescued from death, and at the age of
twelve baptized by a bishop called Erhardt,
when her eyes were at once opened (but see
Boll. A.SS. Jul. iii. 212, 214 sq., upon this bap-
tism and miracles, and claiming them as the
work of St. Hildulfus of Treves ; the father is
Ethico or Athicus). Her father in remorse built
a nunnery for her at Hohenburg, where she
died Dec. 13th, A.D. 720. She is invoked in
affections of the eyes, and has as her symbol two
eyes lying upon a book (Herzog, Keal-Encycl. vi.
197; Hist. Litt. de la France, viii. 89-1).
[Hildulfus.] [J. G.]
ODILLEOZ, a monk sent to Alcuin in 796
from the brethren of the church of St. Lindgar,
which may have been at Autun, or else at
Minister thai in Alsace (Alcuin, ep. 52 and note,
in Pat. Lat. c. 217), or Murbach (Dummler, Moti.
Ale. p. 340). [C. H.]
ODILO (Otilo), dux of Bagoaria (Bavaria),
who greatly encouraged the mission of St. Boni-
face among his people, and in conjunction with
him established the first four bishoprics of
Bavaria (Othlo, Fit. Bonif. num. 31, in Pat. Lat.
lxxxix. 649). [BONIFACIUS MOGUNTrNENSIS.]
His marriage in 742 with Chiltrudis or Hiltru-
dis, the daughter of Charles Martel, and his
defeat in 743 at the Lech by Carloman and
Digitized by
Google
OliLANDUS
Pippin, are recorded by Fredegarius (Pat. Lot.
taxi. 681) sod gome anonymous annals (Bouquet,
T. S3, 196, Ti 97, 137). [C. H.]
ODLANDUS, 10th abbat of St. Bertin, circ.
795-804. There is extant a document dated in
the 20th year of Charles the Great's reign pur-
porting to be a grant by him to Autlandus or
Audlandus, and his monks, of the privilege of
hunting wild beasts in the monastery domain, but
not in the royal forests, for skins to bind books
for the monks and make them gloves and belts.
This document was published by Mabillon in the
De Be Dipt. p. 631, and thence transferred into
Migne's collection (Pat. Lot. xcvii. 976), but it
is rejected as spurious by Le Cointe. Odlandus
acquired for his foundation several villages,
with their churches and dependencies, and in
797 established his residence at Arques, where
he executed some engineering works for the
improvement of the channels of the Aa and built
dour-mills, for which he afterwards acquired
the grant of a monopoly. The church of St.
Martin in the same parish which had been
destroyed by Northmen, he re-established, and
attached to it ten monks. (Laplane, Let Abbes de
Samt-Bertin, i. 39-42 ; Gait. Christ, iii. 487-8.)
[S. A. B.]
ODOACEK (Odovacar), king. The first is
the generally received form of the name, but the
latter is correct. (Odovacar, Cassiod., Chrxm. and
MS. in Marini Papiri Dipt. n. 82 ; Odov ACHAE and
Odobaqar, Eugyppius, Vita S. Sev. 14, 40, in
Mignc, Patr.Lat, Uii. 1176, 1192; AUDOACHAR,
Or. Gent. Lang, in Man. Germ. Hist. Script.
Ber. Lang. 3, the last form supporting Grimm's
derivation from Audags and vakrs = a good
watcher, Pallmann, ii. 168.) His father's name
was Edecon (An. Vol., Ant. M. 209), who has
been identified by Gibbon and others with the
Edecon mentioned by Priscus, and with Edica,
king of the Scyri (Jord. Get. 130), but this
identification, though possibly correct, is un-
proved. He was a Teuton, but of what tribe is
uncertain. The statement that he was a Scyrian,
'Ant. M. 209) seems the most probable, though
Jordanes (Rom. 44) makes him a Rugian. At
any rate he sprang from one of the four kindred
tribes, the Scyri, Rugi, Turcilingi, or Heruli,
who in the middle of the fifth century dwelt
between the Danube and the Carpathians in
what is now Northern Hungary. He was born
in A.D. 433 (Ant. H.). He is first mentioned as
one of a band of young barbarians who visited
the hermit Severinus on their way through
Koricnm to seek their fortunes in Italy. The
taint predicted his future elevation. " Go,"
said he, " to Italy. Thou art now clad in skins,
but shalt soon be able to give costly gifts to
many." (Eugyppius, vbi supra.') He probably
took service in the Foederati, the barbarian
auxiliaries who had become the backbone of
the Roman army, and in a.d. 472 had risen so
high that his adhesion to Ricimer in his revolt
against Anthemius is expressly mentioned (Ant.
M. 209). In the summer of a.d. 476 the foederati,
whose suspicions may have been aroused by the
attempts of Nepos and Orestes to remove them
from Italy to defend against the Visigoths the
remnants of the Roman possessions in Gaul,
demanded from Orestes, the father of the
puppet emperor Romulus, a grant of one-third
CHRIST. BIOGR. — VOL. IT.
ODOACEB
66
of the lands of Italy (Procopius, Goth. i. 1).
A refusal was followed by a mutiny, which
probably broke out in the north-east of Italy.
Recruits from the Rugians, Scyrians, Turcilingi
and Heruli may have marched across Noricum to
join their kinsfolk, thus supplying a ground
for the false conception of Odovacar as a barbarian
invader of Italy. The campaign was a short one.
On August 23rd (An. Cusp.) Odovacar, then
one of the imperial guard, was proclaimed king.
On the 27th, Pavia, where Orestes had retreated,
fell, and the city experienced all the horrors of
a storm, though Epiphanius did all he could to
protect the inhabitants. [Epiphanius (13).]
The next day Orestes was taken and executed
at Placentia. Odovacar marched on Ravenna,
captured Paulus, the brother of Orestes, at the
Pineta on September 4th, put him to death, and
took Ravenna, where Romulus had taken refuge.
From pity or from policy he spared his life, and
granted him the Campanian villa of Lucullus
with an annual pension.
The first act of Odovacar was to negotiate a
treaty with Genseric, who ceded him the greater
part of Sicily on the condition of his paying
tribute for it (Victor Vit., de Pers. Vand. i. 4,
in Patr. Lot. lviii. 187). His probable motive
was to provide for the corn supply of Italy,
which had been seriously diminished by the
loss of Africa. He granted his soldiers the
lands Orestes had refused (Procopius, vbi supra),
but the execution of Count Brachila on July 11th
of the following year (An. Cusp.) seems to indi-
cate a mutinous tendency among them.
His relations with the East and the conquered
Romans were in a critical state. The latter
could not reconcile themselves to the dominion
of a barbarian, and the orthodox clergy could
still less tolerate the supremacy of an Arian.
It is remarkable in the Papal correspondence
how completely Odovacar is ignored, and Zeno
regarded as the sole legitimate monarch. The
emperor Nepos, too, though a fugitive from Italy,
retained his hereditary dominions in Dalmatia,
and was acknowledged by the fragment of Gaul
that remained Roman. After the restoration
of Zeno at the close of a.d. 477, envoys from
the different parties in the West appeared at
Constantinople. The deposed Romulus (no donbt
at the instigation of Odovacar), caused the
senate to send Latinus and Madusins to inform
Zeno that they required no separate emperor
in the West, but that one would be sufficient
for the whole empire. Odovacar they said was
qualified to govern by his ability in both civil
ind military affairs, and they asked Zeno to
grant him the dignity of patrician, and commit
to him the government of Italy. From Odovacar
a separate embassy came, and Nepos also sent to
congratulate Zeno on his restoration and to
request his aid in recovering the empire. Zeno,
from the influence of his wife Verina and a fellow-
feeling for the misfortunes of Nepos, was inclined
to favour him, but lacked the power ; he there-
fore returned diplomatic answers. He reproached
the envoys of the senate with having killed one
of the two emperors they had received from
the East and with having expelled the other.
They knew, he said, what their duty was, namely,
to welcome the surviving emperor on his return.
He directed Odovacar to seek the dignity of
patrician from Nepos, but added that he would
F
Digitized by
Google
«6
ODOACER
ODOACEK
grant it himself if Nepos did not anticipate
him. He trusted that Odovacar would welcome
back the emperor who had granted him such an
honour, and in his letter to Odovacar, he
addressed him as patrician (Malchns). It was
probably on this occasion that the imperial
regalia of the West were sent to Constantinople
(An. Vol. 64), and probably also that envoys
from the fragment of Gaul that was still
Roman appeared at Constantinople, and that
Zeno was inclined to lean to the side of Odovacar
as against them (Candidas).
After the murder of Nepos in A.D. 480,
Odoviicar invaded and conquered Dalmatia,
putting his murderers to death. This war
apparently occupied the years 481 and 482
(An. Cusp., Cass. Chron.). Odovacar's dominions
thus became conterminous with those of Zeno,
a fact which did not tend to improve the rela-
tions between them. In 484 111 us sought the
aid of O.lovacar in his revolt against Zeno,
which he refused, bat two years later he made
preparations to assist him (Ant. M. 214). Zeno's
counter-more was to stir up the Rugians against
Odovacar. In the war which followed in a.d.
487, Odovacar was completely successful, almost
exterminating the Rugians and capturing their
king Fava or Feletheus, who was afterwards
executed, and Gisa his queen (Eugypp. 54,
An. Vol. 48, An. Cusp.). He sent, perhaps in
irony, a portion of the spoils to Zeno, who
simulated a satisfaction he did not feel. An
invasion by Frederic the son of Fava the next
year was repelled by Onulf, Odovacar's brother,
and Frederic fled to Theoderic. By Odovacar's
orders, Northern Noricum was then evacuated by
the Romans that remained there. (Eugypp. xii.)
So far the Eastern diplomacy had failed,
but Zeno's next move was more successful.
Theoderic, the king of the Ostro-Goths, had in
486 and 487 made two invasions, on the second
of Which he had penetrated within twelve miles
of Constantinople. Zeno now by a master-
stroke of policy persuaded him to undertake an
expedition against Odovacar, thus ensuring the
destruction of one or other of his enemies, and
the removal of the most dangerous from his
neighbourhood. The fugitive Frederic probably
threw his influence into the same scale, and
there was apparently some tie of relationship
between Theoderic and the Rugian royal family.
In the winter of 488 Theoderic with the Gothic
nation evacuated Moesia and marched into Italy.
Odovacar was defeated on August 28th, 489, on
the IsonzO, and a month later in a second great
battle at Verona, and fled to Ravenna. Milan
and Paria surrendered, and the greater part of
Odovacar's army, headed by Tufa, his magister
militum, went over to the conqueror. Tufa was
sent to besiege Ravenna, but by a double treason
went over to his old master, betraying to him
Theoderic's officers. Odovacar was thus enabled
to take the offensive ; he marched in the spring
of 490 on Milan, and besieged Theoderic in Paria
(Knnod. V. Epiph. in Patr. Lot. lxiii. 225). He
was rescued from this perilous position by
reinforcements of the kindred Visigoths from
Gaul, and a third great battle on the Adda on
August 1 1th ended in the total defeat of Odovacar.
Still he defended himself bravely for two years
and a half in Ravenna, making frequent sallies,
including one on July 10th, 491, on the side of
the Pineta, which caused great slaughter on
both sides. His position grew more hopeless,
Cesena alone outside Ravenna was held for him,
provisions grew very scarce, and in August 492,
Theoderic blockaded Ravenna by sea. On the
other hand the Goths were weary of the Ion;
siege, and on February 27 th, 493, a peace waa
arranged by the mediation of John the arch-
bishop of Ravenna (Procop. ubi supra ; Agnellns,
Lib. Pont, in Script. Per. Lang. 303), Odovacar
giving his son Thela or Ocla, whom he had
proclaimed Caesar (Ant. //.), as a hostage, on
the terms that Theoderic and Odovacar should
reign jointly over Italy, and Ravenna sur-
rendered on March 5th. The arrangement
could not be a durable one, and in fact lasted
just ten days. Theoderic, perhaps justly, sus-
pected Odovacar of plotting againrt him, and
resolred to anticipate him. Odovacar wa»
sitting in the palace of Lauretum, when two of
his men entered and seized his hands a* sup-
pliants. Armed men who had been waiting in
the adjoining rooms immediately rushed in, bat
hesitated to strike. Theoderic, however, plunged
his sword through his body, crying oat, "So
thoa hast treated my kinsfolk." His brother
was shot to death in the church where he had
taken sanctuary, his wife Sunigilda starved to
death, and his son first was banished to Gaul,
and when he escaped was put to death (Ant.
H.~). The remnants of Odovacar's army shared
his fate (An. Vol. 56).
As has been previously noticed, Odovacar in*
terfered little in ecclesiastical matters, and i»
but little noticed by ecclesiastical writers.
Though an Anan himself, he appears to have
treated the orthodox with mildness and justice.
After his accession he wrote to S. Severinua,
promising to grant whatever he wished (Eugypp.
40), and at the request of Epiphanies (13), re-
mitted for five years the taxes of Pavia (Ennod.
V. Epiph. in Patr. Lot. lxiii. 224). The only-
occasion on which he took a prominent part in
church matters was at the Papal election after
the death of Simplicius, of which a full account,
is giren under Felix III.
The significance of Odovacar's place in history
is due to two facts : that by him the separate
line of Western emperors was extinguished, and
the first German kingdom established in Italy.
Thus the field was left clear for the develop-
ment of the Papal power, and for the eventual
establishment of a Teutonic emperor. Yet no
contemporary seems to have marked the signi-
ficance of the deposition of Romulus or to have-
realised that the Western line was to end with
him. There had been previous interregna, and,
not to mention Romulus and Glycerins, Nepos was
still emperor de jure and over a considerable ter-
ritory emperor de facto. The newly discovered
fact that Odovacar, probably as a last resource,
proclaimed his son emperor, shews that it was
quite possible that the Western line might hare
been restored. Again, Odovacar rnlod in a two-
fold capacity, the Teutonic part of his subjects
as king, while over the Roman part he wielded
as patrician what was in theory a delegated
authority. It is noticed (Cass. C/iron.') that he
did not assume the purple or other royal orna-
ments, and he seems to have styled himself
simply king, without adding any tribal or
territorial designation. He is once indeed called
Digitized by
Google
ODOAKIUS
rex Italiae by a contemporary writer (Victor
Vit. utn supra), bat thia is probably a descrip-
tion and not a formal title. Insecure as the
position of his successor was, that of Odovacar
was far more so. The former was hereditary
king of a united and organized nation, while
Odoracar could only rely on the support of the
army, composed of fragments of different and
discordant tribes.
The authorities for his history are very
meagre and fragmentary. The principal are
the chronicle known as Anonymas Cnspiniani
(An. Cusp.), the fragments discovered by Valois
(An. Vol.), Jordanes (ed. Mommsen 1882), Cat-
siodorus (Chronicon) ; and especially John of
Antioch, many fragments of whose history are
pa Wished in Muller's Fragments Hist. Grate.
ir. (Ant. M.\ and others, including one of great
value, by Mommsen in Hermes vi. (Ant. H.).
Modern accounts of Odoracar are given by
Tillemont, Emp. vi, Gibbon, ch. 36, 39, Dahn,
Die KOnige der Oermanen ii., and a very full one
by Pallmann (GeschicKte der Vdlkeraanderung
ii.). Mr. Uodgkin's Invaders of Italy gives an
excellent account of his history up to a.d. 477.
The relation of the different authorities has
been examined by Waitz(iVacAr»cAten,GfSttingen,
1865-81, and Holder-Egger, N. Archie, i. 215).
[F. D.]
ODOARIUS, first bishop of Lugo, after its
recovery from the Mahommedans. He had fled
before the invaders, and after long banishment,
on the recapture of Lugo by Alphonso I., re-
turned there with a number of his retainers and
others, rebuilt the city, which he found wasted
and uninhabited, and became bishop of it. He
buih various churches, and settled his retainers
in various villages in the surrounding country,
and planted vineyards and orchards. Two wills
of his are extant, one of which is dated in a.d.
747, in which be styles himself "Archiepiscc-
pus." By them he gave the villages and
churches be had founded to the see of Lugo.
He also assisted in repeopling Braga after its
recovery. According to an ancient Kalendar, he
died on September 21st, 786. (Bsp. Sag. xl. 89 ;
(ham, Kirckengeschkhte von Bpanien, il. (2),
-*51.) [P. D.]
ODOBEOCUS. [Edobichus.]
ODRENE (Odrincs, Hvidhretni, Hrn-
DHKS), bishop of Moville, co. Down, died A.D.
694. (Ann. Bit. a.d. 693; Reeves, Heal. Ant.
152 ; Cotton, Fast. Hib. iii. 219.) [J. G.]
ODTJINU8, a presbyter, to whom Alcuin
addressed his epistle De Baptismi laeremtmii.t
(Pat. Lot. ci. 611). [<J. H.]
ODUliFUS (AuDULrus, Aotoltos), count,
a friend of Alcuin, who asks Arno archbishop
of Salzburg to remind him to be just in
judgment and merciful to the poor (Ep. 153,
Froben. 113, and notes in Pat. Lot. 0. 403 a).
The letter belongs to the year 805, when Odulfus
was • missus regius conjointly with Arno (vid.
the second capitulary of that year, capit. 7, in
Baloze, Capitularia, t. i. p. 425 ; and Meichel-
beck's Bistoria Frisingensis, t. L p. 2, Imtrum.
118, 123, pp. 90, 93). He died in 819, as re-
corded in the Brevet Annates Batisponenses,
given by MabiUon (Vetera Analecta, 1723,
p. 368> [a H.]
OFFA
67
OEDILRAEDUS, and OETHILBAED
(Kemble, C. D. 35). [Howmusd.] [C. H.]
OEGETCHAIB, bishop of Mahee Island, co.
Down, died a.d. 735. (.4nn. Olt. A.D. 734,
calling him Oedoedcar. See also Reeves, Eccl.
Ant. 149 j Cotton, Fast. Bib. iii. 218.) [J. G.]
OENGUS (1) (Aenghus), son of Tibraide
or Tipraite, priest or abbat of Clonfad, county
Westmeath, is known only for his hymn in
praise of St. Martin, written in the Irish cha-
racter and in rude latinity ; it is printed with
notes by Dr. Todd (Book of Hymns, Fasc. ii. 171
sq.). From the Scholiast's Preface we learn
that it was written in expectation of a visitation
of the churches of St Colum-cille in Ireland by
the abbat of the parent house, St. Adamnan,
probably at the close of the 7th century He
died A.D. 746. (Ann. XJlt. a.d. 745.) [J. G.j
OENGUS (8), son of Crunnmhael, abbat of
Duleek, co. Meath, died A.D. 783. (Ann. XJlt.
A.D. 782.) [J. G.]
OENGUS (8), son of Urguist king of the
Picta. His name assumes many forms — Anous,
OENGUS, HUNGUS, UnGUB, UnUST, UrDNlTlST,
Ukuist (Skene, Chron. 496; if. B. B. 288,
662-3). He was. one of the most powerful
kings of Pictavia and Hungus of the Legend of
3. Andrew, but it antedates the occurrence by
four centuries. (Skene, Chron. pass.; Innes,
Crit. Ess. i. 101 sq.) [Hungus.] [J. G.]
OENNA, Jan. 20, Mac ua Laighisi, abbat
of Clonmacnoise, King's County, succeeded the
founder St. Ciaran, A.D. 549, and died a.d. 57i>
(Ann. Tig., as Aengusius; Gams, Ser. Ep. 212)
as a bishop. (O'Hanlon, Ir. SS. 1. 382.) [J. G.]
OFELLUS, bishop of Cleopatris in Egypt.
Mentioned in the paschal letter of Theophilus,
bishop of Alexandria for the year 404 (translated
by Jerome, and forming Ep. 100 in his works),
as then recently appointed. [W. H. F.l
OFFA (1), the youngest son of Ethelfrith,
king of Northumbrift (A.D. 593-617), by his
second Wife Acha, daughter of Ella and sister of
Edwin (Symeon Duflelm. ed. Surtees Son. i. 209,
218). During the reign of Edwin, Offa and his
brothers took refuge in Scotland, and several of
them, at least, were baptized at Iona (Id. 210 ;
Beda, iii. 3 ; Vita S. Cohmbae, i. 113; S. C. 20,
43). They returned on the death of Edwin, but
we hear no more of Offa. [J. R.]
OFFA (8), a son of Aldfrith, king of
Northumbria (A.D. 685-705). His mother,
probably, was Cuthburh, sister of Ina, king of
Wessex. Symeon of Durham (H. B. sub anno
750, and B. E. Dunelm. ii. 17) tells us that to
escape from his enemies, he fled for protection to
the body of St. Cuthbert at Lindisfarne, whence
when half-dead with hunger, he was dragged out
and slain. He had probably incurred the
animosity of Eadbert, king of Northumbria,
who also imprisoned Kynewulf bishop of Lindis-
farne, and pnt his see in commission. The king
was probably affronted with the bishop for
allowing Offa to take sanctuary (Pref. to Symeon,
H. B. ed. Surtees Soc. xvU.-xrul). [J. K.]
F 2
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
68'
OFFA
OFFA ($), king of the East Saxons, ion of
Sighere and nephew of Sebbi, who, after a reign
of thirty years, died about the year 695. Sebbi,
according to Bede, was succeeded by his sons
Sighard and Snefred (H. E. iv. 11). Offa's ac-
cession may have taken place either on his
father's death, the date of which is unknown, or
on his uncle's death, when he may have obtained
his father's share of the kingdom, or on the
death or displacement of his cousins. Bede
(H. E. v. 19) describes him as a youth of great
beauty and devotion, most beloved by his
people. Out of a spirit of piety he left his
country, wife, lands, and kinsfolk, for the sake
of Christ, that he might receive a hundredfold
more in this present life, and in the world to
come life eternal. Accordingly, when Coenred,
king of Mercia, in A.D. 709, went on pilgrimage
to Rome, Offa accompanied him, received the
tonsure, and spent the rest of his life as a
monk.
To this story a few other particulars are
added by later writers. Florence of Worcester
(Appendix, Man. Hist. Brit. p. 637) alleges that
Offa was persuaded to go to Rome by Kines-
witha, the daughter of Penda, whom he wished
to marry, and that he was accompanied by
Ecgwin, bishop of Worcester, who on the occasion
of this journey obtained from pope Constantine a
confirmation of his foundation at Evesham (ibid.
540, 637). William of Malmesbnry repeats the
story (G. P. lib. iv. § 180 ; G. R. lib. i. § 98),
adding that by Kineswitha he was "edoctus
amores mutare in melius." As Penda, Kines-
witha's father, died fifty-four years before the
pilgrimage was undertaken, the lady must have
been too old for Offa's bride, and could hardly be
the wife whom Bede mentions him as forsaking.
She may, however, have been an instructress, or
adviser. The connexion of Ecgwin's visit to
Rome with the pilgrimage of Offa and Coenred
is also bronght out in the Evesham charters,
which are incorporated in the life of Ecgwin
(Mab. AA. SS. O.S.B. saec. iii. pt. 1, pp. 320,
321). Ecgwin himself is made to mention their
companionship in a foundation charter (p. 320 ;
cf. Kemble, C. D. 64 ; Chron. Evesham, ed. Ma-
cray, pp. 17-20) ; and the two kings are repre-
sented as agreeing with and confirming the
charter of Constantine, which likewise mentions
their visit to Rome (Mab. 1. c. p. 321 ; Chron.
Evesham, p. 171 ; Councils, Sic, ed. Uaddan and
Stnbbs, iii. 281, 282). The life of Ecgwin by
Brihtwald further implies that the two kings
returned from Rome with the bishop (Mab. 1. c.
p. 324), but this is at variance with the state-
ment of Bede, and is mixed up with some other
unhistorical statements.
The name of Offa appears in other charters
in connexion with Ecgwin. A grant of lands at
Scottarith, Hnuthyrste, and Hellerelege, made
by Offa, " rex Merciorum," but attested by
Ecgwin, is referred by Kemble (K. C. D. 55) to
Offa of Essex ; and Offa, as king of the East
Angles, is made to join with Coenred in an Eves-
ham charter granted at Rome (K. C. D. 61 ;
Mon. Angl. ii. 15). This confusion seems to
have misled even William of Malmesbnry, who
calls Offa king of the East Angles (Q. P. §§ 160,
180, 232). This has led to another mistake ;
the East Anglian kings being descended from
an early Wuffa, bore the name of Uffings : some
OFFA
confusion of this name with that of East Saxon
Offa, whose sanctity was well established by his
pilgrimage, led perhaps to the idea that the
Offings were a saintly stock, and to it accordingly
Ercenwold and his sister Ethelbnrga are referred.
The East Saxon Offa had an ancestor of his own
name, Offa, father of Escwin, and eighth in
descent from Woden (Mon. Hist. Brit. p. 628).
[S.]
OFFA (4), king of Mercia, 757-796.
Offa occupies a most important place in the
history of the English nation in the eighth cen-
tury. He is the most powerful king of the
greatest of the English kingdoms ; his extant
charters are more numerous than those of any
other king of the age; his relations to both
pope and emperor are more definite, and the
general impression as to his character and policy,
which the history of the time leaves on the
mind of investigators, is at once more distinct
and more imposing than that left by any other
contemporary sovereign except Charles the
Great. Yet it must be confessed that the mate-
rials for forming a consecutive history of his
reign are extremely jejune : they are distinct,
but very meagre, and legend has been unfor-
tunately active in filling in the outlines. The
following sketch contains no more than is re-
quired for piecing together the several incidents
of his career, the more important parts of which
have been treated under other titles.
Offa was the son of Thingferth, the son of
Eanulf, who was the founder of the family
monastery of Bredon. Eannlf was the son of
Osmod, the son of Eowa, the brother of Penda,
and was first cousin to Ethelbald. Offa was
eighteenth in descent from Woden, and thir-
teenth from Offa, the son of Warmnnd, whose
mythological history, going far into heathen
times, was a part of the common stock of
English and Scandinavian legend. It may be
here stated that the lives of the two Offas,
ascribed, but on very uncertain authority, to
Matthew Paris, are an attempt to bring the
two heroes into historical connexion, with the
unfortunate result of making the Mercian Ofl'n
almost as shadowy as his predecessor. Accord-
ing to this fabulous narrative, the mother of
Offa was named Marcel Una, and he himself in
childhood bore the name of Winefred.
On the death of Ethelbald, which we have
good reason for dating in 757, the Mercian
throne was filled for a short time by a tyrant
named Beornred, whose name is not found iu
the pedigrees, and who perished within the
year, being either driven into exile by his
people, as Matthew Paris circumstantially states,
or, as is perhaps more probably put by Florence
of Worcester, being killed by Offa (M. Paris,
Hist. Major, i. 342, 343 ; Flor. Wig. M. H. B.
638). The chronicle merely tells us that he
was expelled. Wesscx and Northumbria expe-
rienced a change of sovereigns about the same
time, or in the following year. Offa retained
his authority without recorded disquietude, and
his history is a blank for several years. Unless
Ethelbald's power had been sorely diminished in
the closing years of his reign, or the influence
of Mercia had collapsed under Beornred, Offa
must have inherited a claim to the superiority
over the East Anglian, East Saxon, and Kentish
Digitized by
Google
OFFA
kingdoms, • brisk rivalry with Wessex, and •
position of triumphant security on the side of
the Welsh. It is probable, however, that in
most of these respects he had heavy work to
maintain his authority : we find him in the
course of his reign dealing severally but sum-
marily with each of his neighbours, and the
annals of the time breathe no suspicion of any
break in his continuous successes.
After he had been for fourteen years on the
throne, we learn from the Northumbrian annals
preserved by Simeon of Durham (if. H. B. 661)
that in 77 1 he subdued the Hestingi : a mys-
terious notice, which cannot be satisfactorily
explained. Possibly the Hestingi are the East
Angles, of whose history at the time nothing is
known but that they were under the rule of
Ethelred, the father of Ethelbert, who subse-
quently married a daughter of Offa. His next
recorded victory was over Kent : in a battle
fought at Otford in 775 (corr. for 773, Chr. S.
M. H. B. 334) he defeated the national army.
Unfortunately we do not know the name of the
king of Kent, who must have led the host ; for
Alric, the son of Wihtred, whom William of
Malmesbury represents as defeated on the occa-
sion (<?. Ji. i. § 15), must have been long dead
[Antic; Kent, Kings op]. The blow seems
to have been successful ; although there were
risings in Kent more than once before the end of
Offa's reign, the kingdom was practically de-
pendent on Hercia until it was won by Egbert,
about 824.
In the year 779 (Chr. & 777) OfTa fought with
Cynewulf of Wessex a decisive battle at Beu-
smgton, in Oxfordshire. The victory which he
there obtained added Oxfordshire permanently
to Mercia, and gave the opportunity, taken some
half-century later, of bringing the episcopal see
of Middle Anglia from Leicester to Dorchester.
It is unnecessary to inquire minutely into the
possible cause of the struggle between two
states which by position and history could not
fail to be rivals. Following up the string of
Offa's successes, we next come to his relations
with the British tribes on the western border.
The Welsh annals ( it. H. B. p. 834) mention two
devastations by Offa, one in 778, a second in
784. Possibly we may refer to these dates the
construction of Offa's dyke, the great boundary
fortification between Mercia and Wales, which
extended from the Wye to the Dee. The interest,
however, of the years 780 to 790 is mainly
ecclesiastical and diplomatic, and will be noticed
farther on. The years were a period, if we may
argue from the silence of historians, of internal
peace, and marked by a policy intended to
secure the consolidation of the Mercian power.
In 786 the death of Cynewulf made way for
Brihtric to ascend the West Saxon throne
[Beorhtric]. It is possible that, although the
influence of Offa may not have placed him
there, he was sustained by Mercian support
against the claims of Egbert, who had family
pretensions in both Wessex and Kent [Egbert].
The marriage of Brihtric with Eadburga, a
daughter of Offa, intended to secure peace
between the two kingdoms, took place in 789
{Chr. S. 787). The marriage of another daugh-
ter, Ealhfleda, with Ethelred, king of Northum-
bria, which took place at Catterick on Sept. 29,
792, was probably a political measure also,
OFFA 69
although it is more probable that Ethelred
needed the support of Offa than that Offa feared
danger to his northern frontier in the disturbed
condition of Northunibria, It was possibly in
the same year, or more probably in 794, that
Offa ordered the East Anglian king Ethelbert to
be beheaded [Ethelbert], an act which not
only suggested a topic for the embellishments of
legend, but has left on Offa's memory its one
great stain. The circumstances are very ob-
scure, but the tradition of the fact is uniform, and
it cannot be disproved. In 795, according to
the Annalct Cambriae, Offa was engaged in
hostilities with the Welsh, and ravaged Rienuch.
The movement in Kent in favour of Eadbert
Praen, which was doubtless in preparation about
this time, did not break into war until Offa's
death, which occurred in the following year.
This short review of his wars shows that middle
and eastern England were entirely under his
hand during a great part of his reign, whilst
during the latter years, by the marriages of his
daughters, he secured a hold on Northumbria
and Wessex. This no doubt justified foreign
nations in regarding him as the chief ruler of
the whole nation, in which character he appears
in the correspondence of Alcuin and also of
Charles the Great. Our knowledge of his re-
lations with Charles dates from the point of time
at which Alcnin took up his abode in the Frank
kingdom, about 780 or 781.
Probably the earliest trace of Offa's foreign
diplomacy occurs in a letter of Adrian I. to
Charles. The pope had heard from the king
that Offa, "the king of the nation of the
English," had signified to him, Charles, that
certain persons, enemies of both kings, had
informed the pope that Offa had proposed to
Charles to depose him and appoint a German
pope in his place. Charles, at Offa's request,
contradicted the story, and Adrian accepted the
contradiction, adding that until informed by
Charles he had heard no such report, and that
he would receive with welcome the envoys of
the English king (Man. Carol, ed. JafliS, pp. 279-
282). As Adrian and Offa were clearly on good
terms in 786, this letter must belong to an
earlier year. In 786 the pope sent the legates
George and Theophylact to England ; they were
accompanied by Wighod, a Frank abbat, sent
with them by Charles. Their first visit after
their reception in Kent was to Offa, who re-
ceived them with great honour, and, after
holding a conference with the West Saxon Cyne-
wulf, took Theophylact with him into Mercia
and the British border, whilst George and
Wighod went into Northumbria. One resnlt
of their mission was the holding of the legatine
synods of 787; another, the institution of the
see of Lichfield ; a third, probably, the consecra-
tion of Egfrith, the son of Offa, as his coadjutor
and presumptive successor. The last two mea-
sures were intended to consolidate the accumu-
lated power of Mercia. [See Gkoroiub (33);
Jaenbert.] The canons of the legatine coun-
cils, although very interesting generally, afford
little that belongs peculiarly to England. They
were, however, read in synod, " tam Latine
quara Teutonice," and afford important data as
to tithes, royal succession, vestiges of paganism,
episcopal jurisdiction and visitation, and the
differences between monks and canons, the latter
Digitized by
Google
70
OFFA
tin order which had nut yet under that name
been introduced into Britain. The southern
synod in which these acts were passed was at-
tended and its acts were confirmed by Offa, arch-
bishop Jaenbert, twelve bishops, four abbats,
three duces, or ealdormen, and one "comes"
(Cotroctfs, Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 461 ; Wilkins,
i. 151). But the report of the legates is appa-
rently incomplete, and no mention is made in it
either of the division of the province or of the
consecration of Egfrith. Both these measures
were carried through the next year. We learn
further, from a letter of pope Leo HI. to Kenulf,
that in this synod Offa undertook to pay an
annual subvention of 365 mancuses to the pope
for the support of the poor and the maintenance
of lamps at St. Peter's (Haddan and Stubbs,
Councilt, iii. 445, 524). In 790 the two kings had
quarrelled; mercantile intercourse was broken
off, and Alcuin thought it likely that he would
be sent to Offa on an embassy of peace (Ale ep.
14, Jfon. Ale. p. 167). How this dispute ended
we are not told. The name of Offa does not
occur in connexion with the proceedings of
Charles on the question of image worship, but
he must be understood as acquiescing in the
doctrine promulgated by Alcuin in the name of
the princes and bishops of Britain (Sim. Dun.
M. H. B. p. 6*7) in 792.
It is probable that Ethelheard, the archbishop
who succeeded Jaenbert in 793, was a Mercian,
and owed his promotion to Offa's patronage ; he
certainly aided with the Mercian party under
Kenulf against the Kentish or West Saxon party
under Eadbert Praen. Whether or no he was
apprehensive of an alliance between the Kentish
men and their great neighbours across the
Channel, Offa must have felt safer with a de-
pendent of hit own in the chair of Augustine.
A few letters of Charles in the later years of
Offa's reign concern England and Kent in par-
ticular. In one the king of the Franks writes
to 08a to urge the recall home of a Scottish
priest who has eaten flesh in Lent, and is now
■ esident at Cologne (Jfon. Carol, p. 851). In
another, Charles urges Ethelheard to intercede
with Ofia on behalf of certain exiles, attached
to a person named Umhringstan, who had died in
France, and who may have been concerned in
the East Anglian troubles which cost Ethelbert
his life, or in the Northumbrian disasters con-
nected with the death of Ethelred {Councils, &c
iii. 488, 498). A letter of the year 796 is
extant, in which Charles promises to Offa immu-
nity for pilgrims on the way to Rome, and
informs him that he has sent presents to the
episcopal sees of Mercia in memory of pope
Adrian, who died in 795 ; in another letter from
Alcuin to Offa we learn that Charles has dis-
patched the gifts, but is sorely grieved to hear
of the murder of Ethelred, which took place in
April 796. This is the last trace of Offa in this
direction. He died on the 29th of July 796, leaving
his kingdom on the eve of outbreak of rebellion
in several quarters, tho history of which belongs
to the next two reigns. The general impression
left by these letters is that both Charles and
Alcuin had confidence in the good faith of Offa,
and regarded him as the great man of the island.
We turn next to Offa's relations to the
churches of his kingdom. A very long series of
charters illustrates the monastic and synodical
OFFA
history of his reign. The largest number is
found in the Worcester Cartularies (Kemble,
C I). No*. 105, 117, 118, 123, 125, 126, 127,
128. 129, 131, 133, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143,
145, 14«, 150, 154,156, 164, 166, 167); others
record gifts to Peterborough (K. C. D. 165,
168), Evesham (to. 130, 134, 147), Minster (io.
106, 112), Rochester(ft. Ill, 132, 152, 155, 157),
Christ Church, Canterbury (A. 121, 122, 153,
158), St. Augustine's (*. 107, 108, 109, 119),
Chertsey (ft. 151), the family monastery at
Bradon (ib. 120, 138), and to some private per-
sons (io. 137, 148). There are among them
many forgeries, chiefly, however, connected with
St. Alban's (K. C. D. 161, 162), CrowUnd (ib.
163), and Westminster ; of the Worcester and
Canterbury gifts most have been noticed in the
articles on the respective bishops. They fill
nearly ninety pages in Kemble's Codex Diplo-
matictu, and comprise charters of the Kentish
and South Saxon kings granted with the consent
or attested with the confirmation of Offa. Of
the St. Alban's and Westminster foundations a
word is necessary. Offa is the traditional
founder of St. Alban's. According to the legend,
amplified and embellished by Matthew Paris.
{Hist. Uaj. i. 356 sq. ; Vit. duor. Off. ed. Wats,
p. 26 ; Jfon. Angl. ii. 214), the murder of Ethel-
bert, king of the East Angles, was contrived by
Offa's queen Kinethritha, in order to place East
Anglia at Offa's disposal. The king was bitterly
grieved at the murder, and banished his wife
from his society. She died soon after, and Offa
was left free to fulfil a vow which he had made
some time before to build a monastery. By
miracle, the place where St. Alban's body was
buried was revealed to him ; he went with his
bishops Ceolwulf and Unwona to Verolamium,
and translated the saint. Offa then went to
Rome to procure privileges for his monastery,
was graciously received by the pope, to whom
ha promised the tribute of Peter's pence, and
on his return founded and endowed the abbey, at
the head of which he placed Willegod as the
first abbat. The whole of this seems to be
fabulous : the charters which are assigned to the
period are forged, and the journey to Rome is a
mere invention. It is, however, quite possible
that Offa was the founder of St. Alban's: such
seems to have been the belief in the eleventh
century, and it is accepted as true by Henry of
Huntingdon and William of Malmesbury. At
Westminster he was regarded in the age of the
Conquest as a restorer, and some of his charters
may be genuine (Jfon. Angl. i. 266 ; Kemble, C. D.
149). His relations to Peterborough rest on a
little better authority, or at least on more
ancient fabrications, and the evidence of the in-
terpolations in the Chronicles. His confirmation
of the possessions of Chertsey is perhaps one
degree nearer to authenticity, though still sus-
picious (Jfon. Angl. i. 422). But many small
Mercian foundations likewise looked back to
him as patron, and it is improbable that where
so much is ascribed to him some little part of
the tradition should not be true. A grant to
the abbey of St. Denys at Paris, dated in 790,
and sealed, bestowing lands in Sussex, is printed
in Birch's Cartularium Saxonicum, vol. i. pp.
360-362.
Offa's laws for Mercia were in existence in the
time of Alfred, who selected, as he says, from
Digitized by
Google
OFTFOB
them as well as from those of Ethelbert and
lne, those which were fitted for his subjects
<Thorpe, Ancient Laics, p. 27). It is possible
that the remnants of recorded Mercian law may
fee fragments of a code of Ofla, but wc hare no
warrant for affirming that they are so, and it
would be very natural to ascribe any traces of
national customs in any kingdom to its most
fiimooj king.
Offa's wife was Kinethritha ; his only son
was Ecgferth, or Egfrith, who reigned for a few
months after him. Of his daughters Eadburgn,
the wife of Brihtric, had an evil report and a
miserable end [Eadboroa]; Ealhfleda was the
wife of Ethelred of Xorthuinbria, and had a hap-
pier end [Elfleda]; Ethelburga, an abbess,
was a friend of Alcuin [Etuelbukqa]. Florence
of Worcester, who does not mention Elfleda or
Ethelburga, names a daughter Elfthritha, who
hred in rirginity, and may be the Elfrida who
was wooed by the unfortunate Ethelbert. An-
other, named Ethelswitha, occurs only in the
Chertsey Charter (K. C. D. No. 151).
The date of Offa's death is misplaced by two
years in some of the MSS. of the Chronicle, and
by other writers who hare copied the mistake :
it really took place on the 29th of July, 796.
<See Will. Halmesb. 67. J?, i. §§ 86, 87-94;
Kemble, Cod. Dipt. i. pp. 128-206.) [S.]
OFTFOB (Estfob, M. II. B. 622 ; Ostfob,
W. Malmesb. G. P. § 136), the second bishop of
Worcester (Mm. Hut. Brit. p. 622). He was a
pupil of St. Hilda, with whom he spent much
ihne in both her monasteries of Hartlepool and
Whitby, in study of holy scripture. Haring
exhausted the means at his disposal in the nor-
thern monasteries he went to archbishop Theo-
dore in Kent, where also he spent some time in
study. Thence he proceeded to Rome, a work
which, as Bede remarks, was at that time esteemed
one of great virtue ; after his return he went to
preach among the Hwiccii, then under the rule
of king Osric, aud after long service, was, on the
resignation of bishop Bosel, elected " omnium
judicio " to fill his place. This event happened
when Wilfrid was acting as bishop of the Middle
Angles, and in the interval between the death of
archbishop Theodore and the appointment of his
successor. At the command of king Ethelred,
Oftfor was consecrated by Wilfrid (Bede, H. E.
hr. 23). All this information is derived from
Bede, and is sufficiently circumstantial to fix the
date of Oftfor's short episcopate ; the year 691
is the date of the coincidence of Wilfrid's work
Is Middle Anglia, and of the vacancy at Can-
terbury.
Florence of Worcester ( M. B. B. p. 539) places
the death of Oftfor and the succession of Ecgwin
under the year 692, which limits Oftfor's ponti-
ficate to less than two years ; it may, however,
be questioned whether this limitation is not
conjectural, and whether the date of Ecgwin's
accession ean be really ascertained.
The Worcester Cartulary (K. C. D. 32) pre-
serves a charter of Ethelred of Mertia, in which
the king bestows on Oftfor thirty cassates at
Heaaburg aad Aust, for the church of St. Peter
at Worcester (cf. Mm. AngL i. 584). This
charter is undated, and attested by bishops
Headds aad Oftfor ; it is not open to any suspi-
cion. Another grant, by the same king, of
OGDOAD
71
forty-four cassates at Fladbury, also to Oftfor, is
rejected as spurious, and with it a charter ot
Ecgwin which mentions it (K. C. IK 33 ; Mon.
Angl. i. 585). Kemble's objection to this ilocu.
meut is based upon the fact, that in it Ethelred
speaks of Osthryth as " conjugis quondam meae,**
whereas Osthryth was alive until 697, and Oftfor
U understood to hare died iu 692. Supposing
Oftfor, however, to hare lived longer, that ob-
jection would ranish. A more valid one perhaps
would be found in the fiict that the preamble,
which is generally a distinguishing feature of a
charter, is nearly the same in the Fladbury as in
the Heanburg charter. As the date of Ecgwin's
appointment rests ultimately in the words of
Florence, the date of Oftfor's death must remain
undecided.
Oftfor attests a charter of Oshere, king of the
Hwiccii, in which land is granted to a comes or
gesith named Cuthbert, to construct a monastery
for the abbess Cutswitha (Kemble, C. D. 36;
Man. Angl. i. 585). This may be genuine, bnt it
is undated. It is, however, attested by archbishop
Brihtwald and cannot be earlier than 693. [S.]
OGDOAD. The number eight plays an
important part in Gnostic speculations ; bnt it
is necessary to distinguish three different forms
in which it has entered in different stages of the
development of Gnosticism.
Ogdoad 7 + 1. We need not hesitite to place
as earliest that which has been described in the
article Hebdohas (Vol. II. p. 850). Astrono-
mical theories had introduced the conception of
seven planetary spheres with an eighth above
them, the sphere of the fixed stars. Hence the
earliest Gnostic systems included a theory of
seven heavens, and a supercelcstial region called
the Ogdoad. When the Valentinian system had
established belief in a still higher place, the
supercelcstial space was called the middle region
(see Mesotes); but Ogdoad was clearly its
earlier name. In addition to the references
given in the article Hebdomas, proving the
continued use of the name Ogdoad in this sense
even among Valentinians, we cite Excerpt. Theod.
ex script. 63 (Clem. Al. p. 984).
Ogdoad 6 + 2. In the system of Valentinus,
the seven henrens, and eren the region abore
them, were regarded as but the lowest and last
stage of the exercise of creative power. Above
them was the Pleroma, where were exhibited
the first manifestations of evolution of subordi-
nate existence from the great First Principle.
In the earliest stages of that evolution we have
(Iren. I. i.) eight primary Aeons constituting the
first Ogdoad. Though this Ogdoad is first in
order of evolution, if the Valentinian theory be
accepted as true, yet to us who trace the history
of the dcrelopment of that system the lower
Ogdoad must clearly be pronounced the first,
and the higher only as a subsequent extension of
the previously accepted action of an Ogdoad.
Possibly also the Egyptian doctrine of eight
primary gods (Herod, ii. 145) may have contri-
buted to the formation of a theory of which
Egypt was the birthplace. In any case an
Ogdoad 7 + 1 would hav> been inconsistent with
a theory an essential part of which was the
coupling its characters in pairs, male and female.
Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 20, p. 176) connects the
system of Valentinus with that of Simon, iu
Digitized by
Google
72
OIDDI
which the origin of things is traced to a central
first principle, together with six " roots." If
for the one first principle we substitute a male
and female principle, the 6 + 1 of Simon becomes
the 6 + 2 of Valentinus. This very question,
however, whether the first principle were to be
regarded as single or twofold was one on which
the Valentinians themselves were not agreed;
and their differences as to the manner of count-
ing the numbers of the primary Ogdoad confirm
what has been said as to the later origin of this
doctrine.
Ogdoad 4 + 4. The doctrine of an Ogdoad
of the commencement of finite existence having
been established by Valentinus, those of his
followers who had been imbued with the Py-
thagorean philosophy introduced a modification.
In that philosophy the Tetrad was regarded with
peculiar veneration, and held to be the foundation
of the sensible world. The Pythagorean oath by
the Tetrad is well known. For references see
Meursius, Demiurg. Pythag. ch. 7, ap. Gronov.
Thes. Or. Ant. col. 9 ; to which may be added
Hippol. Ref. vi. 23, p. 179. We read there
(Iren. I. xi.) of Secundus as a Valentinian who
divided the Ogdoad into a right-hand and a left-
hand Tetrad ; and in the cose of Marcus (7. ».),
who largely uses Pythagorean speculations about
numbers, the Tetrad holds the highest place in
the system. [Maecus (17).] [G. S.]
OIDDI, a priest who assisted Wilfrid in the
conversion of the South Saxonr (Bed. H. E. iv.
13). [Pdch, »./.] [C. H.]
OIDILUALD, hermit of Fame (Bed. v. 1).
[Ethelwald (3).]
OEDILVALD, of Northumbria. [Etiiel-
WALD (1).]
OISSEIN (OlSSENE, OSSENECS, OlSSENITJS,
Osenius), surnamed Fota (the Long), abbat of
Clonard, co. Meath, died a.d. 654 (Ann. Tig.).
He is referred to as an undoubted autho-
rity by St. Adamnan (Vit. S. Col. i. c. 2;
Colgan, T. T. 339). His feast U May 1.
[J. G.]
OlSSENE (Ossenius), abbat of Clonmac-
noise, King's Co., died A.D. 706. (Ann. Tig. ;
Ann. Ult. A.D. 705.) [J. G.]
OJA (Ola), bishop of Barcelona, subscribes
the canons of 5th and 6th councils of Toledo,
held in June A.D. 636 and January A.D. 638.
His predecessor Severus was alive in A.D. 633.
No bishop of Barcelona is mentioned between
A.D. 638 and a.d. 656, when Quiricus had been
bishop for some years. (Esp. Sag. xxix. 133;
Tejada y Ramiro, Col. de Can. de fa Igl. Esp. ii.
322, 348.) [F. D.j
OLBIANUS, a bishop, whose martyrdom by
fire in the reign of Maximian for refusing to
sacrifice to Juno, is commemorated in the Basilian
Menohgy, May 4 and 29. In one place the see
is Anea, and the persecutor is the hegemon
Julius ; in the other Aelianus, hegemon of Asia,
persecutes. In the Menologium Orascorum,
May 29, the imperial reign is the same, the
consuls are Alexander and Maximus, the prae-
sides Julius and Aelianus. A sunaxary given
by Boll. Acta US. 29 Mai. vi. 101, twice men-
OLYBRIUS, FLAVIUS ANICIUS
tions the name. Under 4 Mai. i. 458, Henschen
quotes all the Greek sources, including the
Menaea for May 29. He makes Olbianus the
Latin Ulpianus, and fixes Anea or Enea on the
Carian coast opposite Samoa, under the metro-
politan of Kphesus, in the province of Asia.
(Cf. Le Quien, Or. Chr. i. 717). [C. H.}
OLCAN. [BOLCAN.]
OLOMUNDUS (Olemcsdus), abbat of the
monastery of St. John the Baptist, honourably
mentioned by Alcuin in a letter to the monks
(E,i. 217 Frob., al. 226). The monastery, also
called Malaste, and subsequently Mons Olivus
(Montolieu), was in the diocese of Carcassonne.
Mabillon puts his death on Dec. 11, 827. (Gall.
Chr. vi. 971, Instrum. 412; Mabillon, AnnaL
t. ii. pp. 250, 251, 420, 517, ed. 1704.)
[C. H.]
OLOPUEN (Lo-PtnaO, first Nestorian bishop
of Sighanfu in India, A.D. 636 to 699. (Le Quien,
Or. C. ii. 1269.) [J. G.]
OLYBRIUS (1), ANICIUS HEBMO-
GENIANUS, son of Sextus Anicius Probus
and his wife Anicia Faltonia Proba, husband
of Juliana and father of Demetrias (q. v.), was.
consul, when still very young, with his brother
Probinus in the year 395. He is described by
Jerome (Ep. exxx. c. 3, ed. Vail.) as a pious
son, a man worthy of love, a kind master, »
courteous citizen. He took a distinguished
part in the senate, but died while still young-,
amid the grief of all Rome, not long before
the city was sacked by Alaric (410). [W. H. F.j
OLYBRIUS (2), FLAVIUS ANICIUS, em-
peror of the West. He was descended from the
great Anician family. After the capture of Rome
by the Vandals he withdrew to Constantinople.
When Genseric released Eudoxia and Placidia,
the widow and daughter of Valentinian 111., the
latter was given in marriage to Olybrius (Eva-
grius, H. E. ii. 7 in Migne, Patr. Or. lxxxvi. 2 r
2517). Genseric employed this marriage as an
excuse for continuing bis ravages, declaring he
wished the empire should be conferred on the
brother-in-law of his son Hunneric, who had
married Placidia's sister (Priscus, p. 74). While
living at Constantinople, according to the Fite S.
Euthi/mii (in Cotelier's Eccl. Graec Monum.
iv. 64), he wrote to Eudocia, the widow of
Theodosius II. and the grandmother of his wife,
urging her to abandon the Eutycbian heresy,
which she appears to hare done [Eudocia (4)3-
He also with his wife built a church dedicated
to St. Euphemia. In A.D. 472, Olybrius was
sent by the emperor Leo to Rome, where civrl
war was raging between the emperor Anthemius
and his son-in-law count Ricimer. There he-
was proclaimed emperor by Ricimer and his
party, according to the Chron. Patch, (in Patr.
(Jr. xcii. 820), against his will. Rome fell after
a five months' siege, in which the inhabitants
suffered grievously from famine, and Anthemius
was murdered by Gundobad, Ricimer'* nephew,
in the church of St. Chrysogonus, where he hod
taken refuge. (Joan. Ant. 209, in Muiler, Frag.
Hist. Gr. iv. 617.) Olybrius survived his rival
only about three months, dying at Rome of
dropsy on October 23, about seven months after
Digitized by
Google
OLYBKIUS
lie assumed th« Imperial title (Cassiodorus,
Ckromcon in Patr. Lat. lxix. 1246). The only
recorded act of his reign is his creating Gundo-
bad a patrician. He left one daughter, Juliana
(9) Ahicia. " [F. D.]
OLYBBIUS (3), presbyter, addressed by
Kiln* (lib. ii. ep. 191. in Pat. Qr. lxxix.).
[C.H.]
OLYMPIANUS. [Olympius.]
OLYMPIANUS (Olympics), governor of
Cappadocia, addressed as an excellent judge and
most eloquent orator by Gregory Nnzianzen
(Ep. 234 al. 165), who asks him to return a
volume containing Aristotle's epistles. [C. H.]
OliYMPIAS (IX the elder, queen of Armenia.
She was the daughter of Ablavius, the famous
pretorian prefect in Constantine's reign, and
was betrothed to his son, the emperor Constans.
Constanc after her father's execution took care
of her as long as he lived and brought her up
as if she had been his wife, but apparently the
marriage never actually took place. In A.D.
360, ten years after the death of Constans, his
brother Constantius gave her in marriage to
Arsaces III., king of Armenia. (Ammian. xx. 11 ;
St. Athanasius, Hist. Arianorum ad Monachos.
§ 69, in Patr. Or. xxv. 776.) Baronius (A. E.
Ann. 388, xlir.) supposes that on the death of
Arsaces, c. 369, Olympias may have married
Anysius Secundns, becoming by him the mother
of Olympias the deaconess, the subject of the
following article; bnt the supposition seems
untenable (Tillem. xi. 416). [F. 0.]
OLYMPIAS (2), the younger, widow, a
celebrated deaconess of the church of Con-
stantinople, the moat eminent in all respects
of the band of holy and high-born women
whom Chrysostom gathered round him. The
family to which Olympias belonged was one
of high rank, bat pagan. Her birth is placed
by Tillemont in or about 368, a.d. Her father,
Seleucus, a count of the empire, died young, and
her mother being also dead, Olympias was left
at an early age the orphan heiress of a fortune
of immense magnitude. Happily for Olympias
her nncle Procopius, under whose guardianship
she was placed, was a man of high character, an
intimate friend and correspondent of Gregory
Xazianzen. She was equally fortunate in her
instructress, Theodosia, the sister of St Amphi-
lochiua of Iconium, whom Gregory desired the
young girl to set before her constantly as a
pattern of Christian excellence both in word and
deed. During Gregory's residence at Constanti-
nople, 379-381, he became much attached to
the bright and beautiful maiden, then probably
about twelve years old, calling her " his own
Olympias," and delighted to be called "father"
by her. (Greg. Naz. Ep. 57 ; Cann. 57, pp.
132, 134.) Olympias had many suitors. The
one selected as her husband by her guardian,
Procopius, was Nebridius, a young man of high
rank and excellent character, to whom she was
married in 384 [Nebridius]. From Olympiad's
own words, as reported by Palladius, her inti-
mate friend, concerning the happiness of being
freed from the heavy yoke of matrimony, and
from service, SovKttas, to a husband whom she
OLYMPIAS
73
found it impossible to please, ph twapivrir avSpl
ipfVaj, there can be little doubt that her married
life was not a happy one (Pa)lad. Dial. p. 164).
In less than two years Olympias was left a widow
without children. She regarded this early
bereavement as a declaration of the Divine will
that she was unsuited to the married life, and
ought not again to be united to a husband. But
it was by no means in accordance with the will
of the emperor that one whose fortune was a
prize to be coveted even by men of the highest
rank should remain a widow. Theodosius marked
her out as wife to a young Spaniard, a kinsman
of his own, named Elpidius. Enamoured at once of
the person and fortune of the fair young widow
Elpidius sought her hand with the utmost im-
portunity. But Olympias steadily refused to
listen to his suit, not from any expressed dislike
to her suitor, but from her fixed determination
not again to entangle herself with the cares of
a married life. Theodosius, indignant at her
opposition to his will, and resolved that she
should not enjoy the wealth she refused to share
with his kinsman, commissioned the prefect of
the city to take the whole of Olympias's pro-
perty into public custody, and retain it until
she had attained her thirtieth year. The impe-
rial orders were carried out with so much
harshness at the instigation of her lover, who
hoped thereby to drive her to accept him for her
husband, that she was even forbidden to go to
church for her devotions, or to enjoy the con-
genial society of the leading ecclesiastics. Olym-
pias's only reply to this act of unfeeling despot-
ism was a letter of dignified sarcasm, in which
she thanked Theodosius for having so graciously
relieved her from the heavy burden of the ad-
ministration of her property, and told him that
he would increase ber debt of gratitude if he
would desire her fortune to be distributed among
the poor, and towards the support of churches.
She had long since renounced the empty glory
of making any such distribntion herself, lest she
should thereby lose the true riches of the soul.
The lady's quiet irony stung the honest soldier to
the quick. Ashamed of his unworthy tyrannical
behaviour, on his return from the campaign
against Haximus, Theodosius revoked his order,
and restored to her the management of her
estates (Pallad. pp. 164, 165). Thenceforward
Olympias devoted herself and her wealth entirely
to the service of religion. Renouncing not
luxuries only, bnt the ordinary comforts and even
the decencies of life, she practised the greatest
austerities, denying herself both food and sleep,
abstaining from the bath, and wearing none
but coarse and worn-out apparel. Her whole
time and strength were given to ministering to
the wants of the poor and sick, and to the hos-
pitable entertainment of bishops and other
ecclesiastics, visiting the imperial city, who
never left her roof without large pecuniary aid,
sometimes in the form of a farm or an estate,
towards the religious works on which they were
engaged. Among others Palladius enumerates
Amphilochius, Optimus (whose eyes she closed
on his death-bed), the two brothers of Basil,
Gregory Nyssen (who dedicated to her the Com-
mentary on a portion of the Song of Solomon,
which he had written at her request (Greg.
Myss. in Cant. torn. i. p. 468) and Peter, and
Epiphanius of Cyprus as well as the three who
Digitized by
Google
74
OLYMPIAS
signalized themselves subsequently as the un-
wearied persecutors of Chrysostom, and- even of
Olympias herself, Acacius,Atticus and Severianus.
Palladins also asserts that Theophilus, the first
author of the cabal against Chrysostom, when
seeking some gilt from her, with feigned humility
prostrated himself before Olympias and kissed
her knees, on which the holy woman, ashamed
to behold a bishop assuming such an attitude,
threw herself with tears at his feet. Palladins
also tells us that when Theophilus found that
Olympias, acting under Chrysostom's advice,
dismissed him with petty gilts and pre-
sents of eatables, his disappointment vented
itself in virulent abnse of his benefactress
(Pallad. Dial. 151, 155). Her house was the
common home of the clergy, as well as of the
monks and virgins who swarmed from all
parts of the Christian world to Constantinople.
It is unnecessary to state that Olympias was the
victim of much imposition, and that her charity
was grievously abused. Indeed, her liberality
was so unrestricted and inconsiderate that Chry-
sostom interposed bis authority to limit it, re-
presenting to her that her wealth was a trust
to her from God, and that she was bound to use
it in the most prudent manner for the relief of
the necessities of the poor and destitute, not in
making presents to the opulent and covetous
<Soz. H. E. viii. 9). Olympias followed Chry-
■ostom's advice, which brought upon her the
illwill of those who, like Theophilus, had pre-
viously made a market of her lavish generosity.
But so far from resenting these disagreeable
results of his wise counsels, Olympias only mani-
fested increased devotion to Chrysostom, ex-
hibiting a woman's tender care for his bodily
wants, of which he was entirely negligent. She
made arrangements for his being supplied with
food suitable to his enfeebled stomach, at proper
intervals, and prevented his abstinences being
too prolonged (Pallad. p. 165).
When she was still under thirty years of age
Olympias was appointed by Nectarius deaconess
of the church of Constantinople. Tbe courtly
old prelate consulted her on ecclesiastical matters,
in which he was a novice, and was guided by
her advice (Pallad. p. 166 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 9).
As has been already intimated, Olympias re-
tained her position as deaconess under Chry-
sostom, to whom she became the chief counsellor,
and his active agent in all works of piety and
charity, not only in Constantinople, but in dis-
tant provinces of the church.
On the arrival of the Nitrian monks, known
as the Tall Brothers, in Constantinople in 401,
Olympias received the refugees hospitably, and
lodged them for some time at her own house
(Pallad. p. 153), careless of the indignant remon-
strances of Theophilus, who charged her with
shewing favour to the enemies of the truth (ibid.
p. 155). On Chrysostom's final expulsion from
Constantinople, June 20, 404, Olympias took
the chief place in the band of courageous women
who assembled in the baptistery of the church
to take a last farewell of their deeply loved
bishop and friend, and to receive his parting
benediction and commands (Aid. 89, 90). The
suspicion of having been instrumental in the
conflagration of the cathedral which immediately
followed the departure of Chrysostom from its
walls, attached to Olympias in common with the
OLYMPIAS
other Indies who had shared the bishop's friend-
ship. Olympias was brought before the prefect
Optatns, and subjected to a brutally severe ex-
amination. No question being made of the fact,
it was bluntly demanded of her why she had
set the church on fire. The calm courage and
piercing irony of her replies foiled the prefect.
He proposed that on condition of her entering
into communion with Arsacius, as some other
ladies had done, the investigation should be
dropped, and that she should be freed from further
annoyance. Olympiad's proud spirit indignantly-
rejected the ' base compromise. A charge had
been publicly brought against her which could
not be substantiated and of which her whole
manner of life, which the prefect could not be
ignorant of, was a sufficient refutation. Before
she even considered the terms proposed she mast
be cleared of the accusation as openly as she had
been calumniated. Force would be unavailing
to compel her to hold communion with those
whom conscience and trne religion forbad her to
recognise. Her request that she might have a
short respite for the purpose of consultation with
her legal advisers as to the proper means of dis-
proving the calumnious accusations was granted
(Soz. hist. Eccles. viii. 24). The severe conflict
Olympias had sustained brought on a severe and
almost fatal illness, wpibs (V^dro* ivamis, in
the latter part of tbe year, the intelligence of
which caused much distress to Chrysostom in
his banishment (Chrys. Ep. vi. p. 580 a). On
the recovery of her health, in the spring of 405,
she left Constantinople, whether voluntarily or
by compulsion is uncertain. Sozonien seems to
speak of a voluntary retirement to Cyzicus. But
the language of Chrysostom (Ep. 16, p. 603 c.)
le.ids us to believe that she was never allowed to
remain long in one spot, her persecutors hoping
that by perpetually hurrying her from one place
to another (toVous Ik rdmey i/uifitty, koX viv-
roBtv iKaivtoHai), and exposing her to the rude
treatment of soldiers and other public officials
this noble woman's spirit might be broken, and
that she might be induced to yield. This hope
being frustrated Olympias was once again sum-
moned before Optatus, who, on her renewed
refusal to communicate with Arsacius, imposed
on her tbe heavy fine of 200 pounds of gold.
(Soz. H. E. viii. 24; Pallad. p. 28). This fine
was Teadily paid, and the intelligence of Olym-
piad's heroic disregard of all worldly losses and
sufferings endured for the truth's sake was a
source of intense joy to Chrysostom in his banish-
ment. He wrote congratulating Olympias on
the victory she had achieved, for which he calls
upon her to glorify the living God who had
enabled her to acquire such great spiritual gain.
(Chry. Ep. 16, p. 604 a). We know nothing
very definitely of the remainder of Olympias'a
life, nor can we say certainly when it terminated.
We may safely dismiss the later legendary
tales of the credulous Nicephorus (H. E. xiii.
24), who states that she was finally banished to
Nicomedia, where she suffered many trials and
persecutions and ended her days. Our only
trustworthy source of information is contained
in the letters addressed to her by Chrysostom from
his banishment, seventeen in number, some
swelling to the balk of long religioas tracts,
the composition of which relieved the tedium of
his exile and made him almost forget his mise-
Digitized by
Google
OLYMPIODOBUS
ties. We gather from them that Olympias was
subject to frequent and severe attacks of sick-
ness, and that the persecution of the party of
Arsacins and Atticns was violent and unsparing.
The compulsory dispersion of the society of
young females of which she was the head, and
who had copied her resolution in refusing to
hold communion with the intruding bishops,
was a great sorrow to her (Chrys. Ep. 4,
p. 577 a). But the dates of these letters are
uncertain, and it would be lost labour to seek
to arrange the various references to Olympiad's
circumstances in chronological order. The style
in which Olympias is addressed in this corre-
spondence is "at once respectful, affectionate
and paternal " (Stephens, S. Chrysostom, p. 383),
" but it exhibits a highly-wrought complimen-
tary "tone, full of "bold and lavish praise"ofher
■stay signal virtues which is " too widely remote
from the mind and taste of our own times to
be fairly estimated by us." We cannot conceive
of a woman of any delicacy at the present time
receiving such fulsome effusions without being
grievously offended by them, and regarding the
writer as a base and shameless flatterer. But
the standard of honesty and of sensitiveness
varies with the age, and it is unfair to measnre
past generations by that of our own day. Besides
the letters Chrysostom wrote for Olympias's
consolation a special treatise on the theme that
" No one is really injured except by himself,''
st< rhw iavrbv fiii doucovrra ob&tls waoa$\d}jf(u
Urarrat (torn. iii. pp. 530-553) ; as well as one
"to those who were offended by adversities" —
s-pej tow aKartakiadirrat twl rats eWquepfau
rats ytyonivais (iM. pp. 555-612). To both of
these reference is made in his fourth letter to
Olympias (Ep. 4. p. 576, c.). The date of
the death of Olympias cannot be determined.
She was evidently living when Palladius pub-
lished his Dialogue in 408 A.D., but was no
longer alive when the Lansiac History was pub-
lished in 420 A.D. Olympias is commemorated
hi the Latin church on the 17th of December,
and in the Greek church oa the 25th of July.
(Palladia*, Diahfus Hittoricus ; Chrysostom,
Epistolae, 1-17 ; Sozomen, H. E. viii. 24 ; Tille-
mont, Mtm. Ecct. vol. xi. ; Stephens, St. Chry-
sostom; Thierry, St. Jean, Chrysostome. [E. V J
OLYMPIODOBUS (1), historian of the 5th
century. He wrote a work in twenty-two
books on the history of the empire under Hono-
ring from A.D. 407-425, which has been pre-
served for us in an abridgment by Pbotius (Cod.
80), and included in Niebahr's edition of the
Byzantine Historians. He covertly attacks the
Christians, and especially Olympius, who is so
warmly praised by St Augustine. [Olym-
pics (10).] He was a pagan. Hierocles dedi-
cated to him his work on Prudence and Fate.
See for a fuller account his life in Dict. Gb.
amd Rom. Bioo. ; and Care, i. 468. [G. T. S.]
OLYMPIODOBUS (8). Various philoso-
phers of this name lived at Alexandria during
the Christian period. One was the teacher of
Proclos [PboCLCB]. Another was the last philo-
sopher of any celebrity in the Neo-Platonic
school of Alexandria. He lived in the first half
«sf the 6th century under the emperor Justinian.
OLYMPIUS
75
A third was a disciple of Aristotle, who taught
his philosophy at Alexandria about A.D. 565
after the Neo-Platonic school had become extinct
A fourth of this name was a follower of Plato
and a correspondent of Isidorus of Pelusium in
the 5th century. See the Dict. Or. and Rom.
Biog. for a full account of tbem. [O. T. 8.]
OLYMPIODOBUS (8), a deacon of Alex-
andria, who lived in the early years of the 6th
century, having been ordained by the patriarch
John HI. surnamed Niciot* [Joannes (13)]. He
wrote commentaries on Job, Ezra, Nehcmiah and
Ecclesiastes (cf. Migne's Pat. Grate, t. xciii.
col. 9-470). For an account of the controversy
about him and other works attributed to him,
especially a treatise on the state of the soul
separated from the body, see Ceillier, xii. 912,
913. Cf. the account of him in the Dict. Gr. and
£om. Biog. and in Fabric. Bib. Grace, ed. Harles,
i. 67.) [G. T. S.]
OLYMPIODOBUS (4), an eparch addressed
by Nilus about the adornment of a church he
is about to erect (lib. iv. ep. 61); another person
who admired Plato, but neglected bis precepts,
addressed by Isidore of Pelusium (lib. ii. ep. 256) ;
Isidore shews him how the arguments of the
pagans recoil on themselves (iv. 27, 186).
[C. H.]
OLYMPIUS (1), a bishop, sent to Africa on
a mission of enquiry in company with Eunomius.
[Eusomius (2).] [H. W. P.]
OLYMPIUS (2), bishop of Hadrianople in
Pisidia. He opposed the views of Origen about
the resurrection of the body. He is mentioned
in the Scholia of St. Maximus on Dionys. Areop.
Fcclcsiast. Hicrarch. cap. vii. (Le Quien, Orient
Christ, i. 1049.) [G. T. S.]
OLYMPIUS (8), bishop of Aeni in Thrace,
expelled from his see by the Arian party along
with Theodulus bishop of Trajanopous (Athanas.
Apol. de Fug. § 3, Bist. Arian. § 19 ; Le Quien,
Or. Chr. i. 1201). [C. H.]
OLYMPIUS (i\ a Spanish bishop, according
to some of Barcelona, according to others of
Toledo, but of what see is not certainly known.
St. Augustine speaks of him more than once as
a man of high reputation in the church, rank-
ing him with Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Ambrose,
and quotes with approval a passage from a theo-
logical treatise of his concerning original sin,
which does not now exist. A bishop Olympius
was present at the council of Toledo, A.D. 4tK).
(Aug. c. Jul. 1, 3, 8; 2, 10, 83; 8, 17, 33;
Gennadius,«V Fir. iff. c. 23; Hardouin, i. 992;
Baronius, v. p. 279 ; Cave, i. 415.) [H. W. P.]
OLYMPIUS (6), a wealthy layman of
Neocaesarea, an intimate and trusted friend
and correspondent of Basil's. After the publica-
tion of the calumnies of Eustathius Basil wrote
to Olympius (c. 373, A.D.) telling him bow deeply
he had been wounded by them, and begging him
not to give any credence to them, or to suspect
him of agreeing with Apollinaris. During his
retirement Basil wrote Olympius other short
letters, complaining of his writing so seldom
(Ep. 12 [171], 13 [172]), and rallying him for
Digitized by
Google
76
OLYMPIUS
chasing away the poverty which had been his
home-companion and the helper of hii studies
by his generous gifts (Ep. 4 [169]). In a.d.
375, when the people of Neocaesarea were load-
ing Basil with insult and ridicnle, he wrote to
Olympius to thank him for his friendly letter,
and still more for the sight of his sons who had
conveyed it, whose company had cheered him
and made him forget his trials. He had written
some letters to the people of Neocaesarea to
exculpate himself and to warn them of the
dangers of their line of conduct, and would
write again if any good was likely to come of
it. (Ep. 211 [170]; 63 [207]; 64 [210].)
[E.V.]
OLYMPIUS (6), a solitary of Antioch, a
friend of Gregory Nyssen, at whose desire he
wrote the life of his sister Macrina (Greg. Nyss.
Vit. Macr. pp. 177, 178). Olympius's request
that he would give him some rules for attaining
Christian perfection was also the cause of
Gregory's writing his treatise De Perfcctume,
in which he proposes Christ Himself as the only
model of the perfect life. {Ibid. p. 275, ed.
Migne, vol. Hi. 251-286.) [E. V.]
OLYMPIUS (7), governor of Cappadocia
Secunda in the year 382, for whom Gregory
Nazianzen entertained a high esteem, and whose
Christian virtues, as well as the manner in
which he fulfilled the duties of his office, he
takesevery occasion of extolling highly. Olympius
on his side shewed an equally affectionate reve-
rence for Gregory, to whom he offered many
thoughtful attentions especially valuable to one
enfeebled by old age and sickness, which Gregory
gratefully commemorates. Fourteen letters
written by Gregory to him are still extant.
The greater part of these are petitions in behalf
of persons who had either some favour to ask
from the governor, or some punishment to
deprecate, fho number of these is an evidence
of Gregory's influence over Olympius, and of
the readiness with which his requests were
granted. He writes on behalf of Aurelius, a
deserter (Ep. 78) ; of Leon tins, a presbyter who
had been deposed for his offences, and was in
danger of punishment {Ep. 175) ; of a kinsman
of his own, Eustratius (Ep. 177); of Paulus
{Ep. 173); of the citizens of Caesarea, who had
committed some grievous offence, for which the
governor had threatened to rase the city to the
ground (Ep. 49) ; of his niece's husband Nicobu-
lus, who wished to exchange his place as post-
master for some lighter and more agreeable
office (Epp. 178, 179); of Philumena, a childless
widow (Ep. 174) ; of Verianus' daughter, whom
her father was desiring against her own will to
divorce from her husband (Epp. 176, 211).
In another letter Gregory excuses himself for
neglecting the emperor's commands conveyed by
Olympius to attend the Council at Constantinople
in 382, on account of age and weakness, and
requests Olympius to act as his mediator, recall-
ing the fact, that the same cause had hindered
him from paying his respects to him on entering
on his office (Ep. 76); on his retirement from
which he writes a grateful and highly pane-
gyrical letter (Ep. 50). The only angry letter
in the whole series is one in which he calls upon
Olympius to use his authority as governor to
punish the Apollinarian party at Natiamus,
OLYMPIUS
who had taken advantage of Gregory's being at
the warm baths to elect a bishop of their owl
and get him consecrated (Ep. 77). The corre-
spondence otherwise gives a very pleasing picture
of the relations between Gregory and the pro-
vincial governor. [E. V.}
OLYMPIUS (8), (Olympos), heathen philo-
sopher at Alexandria, c A.D. 389, said by Vale-
sius to have come from Cilicia. When the
Alexandrians rose in tumult against the Chris-
tians and the imperial authority, at the destruc-
tion of the temple of Bacchus, and held that of
Serapis as a fortress, Olympius encouraged the
idolaters in their revolt, by assuring them that
they should prefer death to the neglect of their
ancestral gods, and that the destruction of the
statues in the temple was no warrant for for*
saking the worship, as the statues were perish-
able materials, but the gods, therein worshipped,
had only removed to heaven. This was the
philosophical view of all idol-worship, when the
heathen were pressed by the Christian argument.
When Tbeodosius issued an edict favourable to
the Christians, and inviting the pagans to
Christianity and peace, and when Olympius saw
that the temple of Serapis was about to be
surrendered, he fled to Italy, but explained his.
flight by saying that he had heard a voice in
the Serapion singing, Alleluia. Sozomen (H. E.
vii. c. 15) is the only authority for the story
of Olympius; .but Ruffinus and other authors
describe the destruction of the temples at Alex-
andria (Baronius, Annal. A.D. 389, cc. 76 sq. ;
Fleury, H. E. xix. cc. 28, 29 ; Tiliemont, Hist.
des Emp. v. 136 sq. ed. 1732.) [J. G.]
OLYMPIUS (9), the name of various
persons addressed by Nilus ; a scholasticua
(lib. i. epp. 152, 153), monk (ii. 77), a bishop,
(ii. 190), a quaestor (ii. 305, 306). [C. H.J
OLYMPIUS (10), a native of a province on
the borders of the Euxine Sea, who by the favour
of Honorius held an important military cont-
mand in the imperial palace. He professed to
be a Christian, but in the opinion of Znsimus,
whose evidence must perhaps be taken with
some qualification, his profession was only a
mask to conceal depravity. It was he who in-
formed Honorius, on his way from Bologna to
Pavia, of the ambitious designs of Stilicho, Hay
408, and having ingratiated himself with,
the soldiers there by visiting the sick in the
military hospitals, made use of the opportunity
to influence their minds against him. When,
after the mutiny at Pavia, Stilicho went to Ra-
venna, it was again Olympius who obtained an
order from Honorius that he should be arrested.
He took refuge in a Christian church, but having;
left his asylum under a promise of safety, he-
was again seized and put to death by Heraclian.
Olympius succeeded to his post of master of the
offices, and devoted himself to the task of de-
stroying or persecuting all the friends of Stilicho.
Eucherius, his son, escaped for a time by taking
refuge in a church at Rome, but was afterwards
overtaken and put to death. Deuterius, im-
perial chamberlain (praepositus cubiculi), and
Peter, tribune or chief of the notaries (primi-
cerius nota riorum), having refused to acknowledge
for themselves any complicity with Stilicho, or
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
OLYMPIUS
to inform against others, were beaten almost to
death with clubs. When Alaric was on the
point of entering Italy, and was threatening
Rome, it was owing to Olympius that Honorius,
reiving, says Zosimus scornfully, on the prayers
ef his minister, refused at the same time both
the powerful military aid of Sarus and his bar-
barians to repel the enemy, and the moderate
demands which were then made by Alaric on
behalf of peace ; and when, after raising the
blockade of Rome, Alaric allowed the senate
to send commissioners to Ravenna to obtain the
consent of Honorius to the terms proposed by
him, it was Olympius who persuaded his weak
master to refuse them, and to send back the
commissioners under an escort only numerous
enough to provoke destruction. One of the very
few who escaped, Valens, the commander,
reached Rome in safety, and was able to counter-
act in some degree the cruel system of confisca-
tion promoted by Olympius towards all the
friends of Stilicho. He succeeded in gaining
with the Hunnish auxiliaries a trifling success
over the invading Goths, but his ascendency
was soon to come to an end, for being denounced
by the eunuchs to the emperor as the cause of the
public disasters, he was dismissed from his office,
and, fearing for his safety, left Ravenna, and fled to
Dalmatia, a.d. 409. According to Olympiodorus,
he returned and was again displaced a second
and third time, and then, after being deprived
of his ears, was beaten to death with clubs by
aider of Constantius, the husband of Placidia.
(Zoa, v. 32—16 ; Olympiod. ap. Photinm, liibl.
80, p. 57 ; Hokobtos, Vol HI. pp. 144, 147.)
These details, which belong more to general
than to special church history, are nevertheless
important in this latter respect so far as they
bear witness to the character of Olympius in
his relation to St. Augustine, from whom two
letters addressed to him are extant, both of them
expressing warm admiration and friendship, and
belief in the sincerity of his Christian professions.
The first of them was written soon after his pro-
motion to the post of master of the offices, on
which it congratulates him, but with the hope
and belief that he will not be unduly elated
thereby. Its purpose is to request his kind
interference on behalf of Boniface bishop
of Cataqua in Nuraidia, who was in trouble as
to the possession of some land purchased by
Paul, hia predecessor, under fraudulent condi-
tions. At a time when he was deeply in debt to
the imperial treasury, Paul made a surrender of
his property, but reserving privately a certain
portion, which he placed on bond in the hands
of a person at that time in high office, possibly
as Tillemont suggests, Bathanarius, brother-in-
law of Stilicho, to be laid out in buying by
auction some land, nominally on behalf of the
church, but really to provide himself with a
maintenance, and made an arrangement with the
nominal purchaser that, without paying the
debt due to the treasury, he should not be mo-
lested by the tax-gatherer. When Paul died,
Boniface succeeded in dne course to the pro-
perty as bishop, and, as belonging to the church,
might have held it without disturbance, but had
scruples of conscience aa to his right of enjoy-
ment; and though he might probably have
obtained this securely by simply petitioning the
•mperor to remit the small amount of payment
OLYMPICS
77
which had become due since the purchase, he
preferred to lay the whole case before him, being
ready to abandon the property rather than enjoy
it clandestinely. To his application on this
point no answer had been received, and Augus-
tine wrote to Olympius, as his friend, and in his
opinion a sincere Christian, to request him to
intercede on behalf of this small boon, suggesting
that Olympius might perhaps arrange the matter
by obtaining a grant of the land to himself, and
that he, in his Christian piety, should bestow it
upon the church (Ep. 96). The success of this
letter may perhaps be inferred from a second,
which Augustine wrote to Olympius soon after-
wards on another matter. The bishops of Pro-
consular Africa were much disturbed by the
unruly behaviour both of idolaters and of
heretics (Donatists), after the death of Stilicho
[Evodios (3), Nectarius (5)], and sent a depu-
tation to the emperor, to request that the laws
against the disturbers of peace and of religion
should be put in force. Augustine had not seen
the members of this deputation, but took advan-
tage of a presbyter from M ileum passing through
Hippo on his way to Rome, though it was now
winter time, to send a letter by him to Olympius,
pressing the matter on his attention (Ep. 97).
Edicts for the (repression of Donatists and other
sectaries were issued at various times from
a.d. 405 to 407, during the lifetime of Stilicho
{Cod. Theodos. xvi. 5, 38-41). Stilicho was
murdered in August, 408, and the decree of
Honorius to Olympius, master of the offices,
and Valens, forbidding pagans from being em-
ployed in military service within the palace, is
dated Nov. 14 in the same year (ib. 42). Suc-
cessive edicts against Donatists and others ap-
peared on Nov. 15, 24, and 27, a.d. 408, and one
on Jan. 16, 409, which last may perhaps re-
present the result of this appeal (CW. Theod.
xvi. 5, 43-46). The point at issue is the extent
of St. Augustine's knowledge of the true cha-
racter of Olympius. According to Zosimus, a
bitter opponent of Christianity, his religious
profession was nothing but a cloak for his ini-
quity. According to Olympiodorus, whose de-
scription consists of a few epithets, his behaviour
towards Stilicho was " murderous and inhuman,"
and if any credit at all is to be given to the
narrative of Zosimus, his unrelenting persecu-
tion of the friends of Stilicho after his death
appears to justify this character. In the opinion
of Baronius and Tillemont, the favourable men-
tion of him by St. Augustine outweighs any un-
favourable judgment on the part of Zosimus,
but there is no evidence to shew that Augustine
had any personal acquaintance with him ; and
while, as both Baronius and Tillemont remark,
some deduction must be made from the opinion
of Zosimus, who never misses an ill-word against
Christians, some allowance on the other side is
also due on the ground (1) of the exaggerated
complimentary phraseology of the day, attri-
buting to Olympius in any case a higher rank of
merit than he probably deserved, and (2) of the
very natural, though not entirely excusable,
warmth of expression on Augustine's part to-
wards a man undoubtedly a Christian by pro-
fession, probably up to that time in outward
appearance sincere, and now appointed to a high
office in the place of one whose Christianity was
at the best doubtful, and who, whatever the
Digitized by
Google
78
OLYMPIUS
demerit* of hie opponents may have been, was
undoubtedly guilty of ambitious designs against
the existing government, which Olympius had
succeeded in defeating. St. Augustine may have
pitched too highly the praises of his friend,
without a full knowledge of his character, but
we can hardly believe that he was aware of that
serious defect in it which a historian with strong
antipathies, as was the case with Zosimus, pro-
fesses to point out. (Baronius, Ann. Ecol. vol.
v. A.D. 408, p. 316-323 ; Tillemont, MOn. vol.
13, 174, 175 ; Gibbon, chap. xxx. xxxi. ; Diet, of
O.aniR. Biog. vol. Hi. p. 913.) [H. W. P.]
OLYMPIUS (11), addressed by Firmus
(J^p. 27, in Pat. Gr. lxxvU.). [C. H.]
OLYMPIUS (IS), the name of various
persons addressed by Isidore of Pelusium ; a
count (lib. i. epp. 377, 378), a deacon (ii. 24), a
presbyter and scholasticus (iv. 205), a presbyter
(v. 105) ; others (v. 387, 477). [C. H.]
OLYMPIUS (18) I., bishop of Constantia,
capital of the island of Cyprus, who took part
in the " Robbers' Synod " in A.D. 449 (Labbe,
ir. 117). He was one of the fifty-eight bishops,
chiefly metropolitans, to whom in A.D. 457 the
emperor Leo addressed his circular letter relative
to the decrees of Chalcelon and the troubles
caused in Egypt by Timothy Aelurus. (7b. 891.)
[E. V.]
OLYMPIUS (14) II. (Olympiahcs), arch-
bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, in the reign of
Justinian. Through the influence of the em-
press Theodora, who was a Cypriote, he obtained
the emperor's leave to enforce the decrees of
Chalcedon in his diocese. He also completed
what his predecessor Artemion had begun,
the ecclesiastical freedom of Cyprus from the
patriarchate of Antioch (Etienne de Lusignan,
Deter, de Plsle de Cypr. p. 59 ; Le Quien, Or.
Chr. ii. 1048). [C. H.]
OLYMPIUS (16), bishop of Theodosiopolis
and Evaza, was present at the council of Chal-
cedon, A.D. 451, and signed the decrees. When
Bassianns was tried by the conncil for intruding
into the see of Ephesns [Bassianos], Olympius
was called upon to explain his own part in the
transaction, and shewed that he had gone to
take his share in what was to be a canonical
action, and was then forced by popular tumult
into the enthronization of Bassianns. The
council appears to have acquitted him of blame.
(Mansi, Cone. vi. vii. per Cone. Chalc, Actio xi. ;
Binius, Cone. ii. pt. i. 127 sq. ; Le Quien, Or.
Chr. ii. 981 ; Fleury, H. E. xxviii. 26 ; Tille-
mont, Hist. Eccl. xv. 460 sq., ed. 1732.) [J. G.j
OLYMPIUS (16), a deacon of the church of
Antioch, by whom, together with Marianus, a
presbyter of the same church, Maximus of
Antioch had written to Leo the Great, and by
whom he sent his reply, dated Jane 10th, 453.
(Leon. Magn. Ep. 119 [92].) [E. V.]
OLYMPIUS (17),a messenger from Anatolius
of Constantinople to Leo the Great. (Leonis
Epp. civ. cap. 1. clviii.) [C. G.]
OLYMPIUS (18), bishop of Scythopolia in
Palestine, from A.D.452 to 466. He was succeeded
OMAR
by Cosmas. (Cotelerius, Monum. Graec. Ecdea.
t. ii. num. 103, p. 286 ; Le Quien, Or. Christ.
iii. 689.) [G. T. S.]
OLYMPIUS (19), an Arian who died sud-
denly in the public baths of the empress Helens,
at Constantinople, in the year 498. He is said
by several writers to have been struck by an
angel when blaspheming the orthodox doctrine
of the Trinity. The angel destroyed him by
fire or boiling water, though he was in the cold
bath at the time. The emperor Anastasius
ordered a picture of the miracle to be painted.
John of Damascus in Orat. 3, de Imag. tells
the story ont of Theod. Lect. lib. ir. (Cf. Victor
Tunnun. Chronic. A.D. 498 ; Ceill. xi. 103.)
[G. T. S.]
OLYMPIUS (20), exarch of Ravenna, sent
by the Emperor Constans, c. 649, to enforce ac-
ceptance of the Type in Italy. For his dealings
with pope Martin I., see Martincs (3), vol. iii.
854. He died c. 652, in an expedition to Sicily
against the Saracens, of a pestilence that
ravaged his army {Lib. Pont. Vita Martini, in
Migne, Patr. Lot. exxviii. 739). [F. D.]
OLYMPIUS (21), a guard sent by the emperor
Constat] tinus IV. to arrest pope Martin for his
rejection of the Type. He is said to hare at-
tempted the assassination of the pope. His con-
duct on this occasion is, however, involved in
much obscurity. [CoNSTANTiKtjs IV.; Mar-
TlKDS (3) in t. iii. p. 854.] [G. T. S.]
OMAR, the second of the caliphs and one of
the numerous fathers-in-law of Mahomet. He
was one of Mahomet's three chief companions,
upon whom the government and organization of
his followers devolved on the death of the Pro-
phet. He was forty-five years old when that
event occurred a.d. 632. He succeeded to the
caliphate in August 634. It doss not fall
within the range of this dictionary to trace his
career as bead of the new movement. This has
been amply and clearly done in Muir's Annals of
the Early Caliphate. We can only note his
attitude towards Christianity. Under the rnlo
of Omar, Syria, Palestine and Egypt fell into
Mahometan hands. [Coptic Church.] Jerusa-
lem was besieged for two years, and only suc-
cumbed when Sophronius, the patriarch, inter-
vened and agreed to surrender the city if Omar
himself would come in person to receive its
capitulation. No caliph had hitherto stirred
beyond the boundaries of Arabia, but Omar did
not care about precedents when a useful object
was to be attained. He at once set out for
Jerusalem, received its formal surrender, and
was shewn over the celebrated sights and holy
places by the patriarch himself He proved
himself a very tolerant conqueror, imposing only
a light tribute upon the Christians, and in some
cases even endowing Christian institutions and
prayiug in Christian churches, as at Bethlehem
in the church of the Nativity. Whilo visiting
the holy places of Jerusalem the patriarch is
said to have shewn Omar a stone venerated as
Jacob's pillar. It was covered with filth and
ciay; so the caliph with a humility which
always characterized him, at once applied him-
self to clean the sacred spot with his own hands,
and laid there the foundations of the mosque of
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
OMEB, 8T.
Omar which still exists. Humility indeed and
toleration for Jews and Christinas were marked
features of bis character. He hated all kinds
of display. On one occasion he was making a
journey into Palestine, and was entering a
Christian settlement near the head of the gulf
•f Acaba. He knew the people would be rush-
ing in crowds to see him, so he changed places
with his camel driver, and when the crowds
came demanding where the caliph was, he
simply replied, " He is before you," whereupon
they rushed on, thinking he was in advance.
Meanwhile, Omar had time quietly to reach the
Christian bishop's house, where he tarried
during the heat of the day. He had torn his
coat on the journey, and he gave it to the
bishop to have it repaired. The bishop not only
mended the rent, but prepared a new coat as a
present, which, however, Omar refused, prefer-
ring his old garment. He was an enemy of all
kinds of luxury, ostentation and vice among the
Mahometans, and strove to carry out rigor-
ously the discipline and precepts of the Prophet.
The conquest of Antioch and Damascus was a
great trial for Mahometan discipline. Wine
was a great temptation to the true believers.
At Damascus an immense number were accused
of drinking it. So large was the number that
the governor became alarmed and consulted
Omar as to his course of conduct. His stern
reply was this, " Gather an assembly and bring
them forth. Then ask, Is wine lawful or is it
forbidden ? * If they say forbidden, lav eighty
•tripes on each. If they say it is lawful, behead
them every one." Three great Mahometan
arrangements are ascribed to Omar. (1) He
arranged and committed to writing the Coran
*Uch was previously preserved by oral tradi-
tion merely. (2) He established the Mahome-
tan era of the Hegira or Flight of Mahomet,
beginning with the new moon of the first month
ia the year of the prophet's flight from Mecca.
(3.) To him is also ascribed the code called the
- Ordinance of Omar " which to this day is the
formal law regulating the condition of Jews and
Christians in Mahometan lands. Muir thinks
that Omar was not its author, as he was too
tolerant and too friendly to Christians to have
devised it. The emperor Heraclius and Omar
had some kindly and courteous communications
notwithstanding their frequent wars. [Hera-
clics.] Theophanes {Chrtmographia) gives us
some information about Omar. Muir's book is
the best modern authority. Gibbon, in his fifty-
tin* chapter gives a good account of Omar and
the conquest of Jerusalem. [G. T. S.j
OMEB, ST. [Audok arcs.]
OMMATIUS (1), senior, a man of rank in
Amvergne, whose daughter Iberia was the wife
•f Buricius the elder, bishop of Limoges.
Sidonius mentions him in his epithalamium to
Koricias and Iberia (carm. 10, 11), and addresses
to him carm. 17, which is an invitation to a
family birth-day fete. Through Iberia he was
the grandfather of Oumatiob (2), bishop of
Tours. [C H-]
OMMATIUS (2) (Ommacius, Omacicb),
junior, grandson of the preceding, son of
Koricias and Iberia, addressed and mentioned
ONESIMUS
79
by Ruricius (lib. i. ep. 18; ii. 27, 56, and notes,
Pat. Lat. lriii). He is regarded as the Ommatiua
described by Gregory of Tours as the 12th bishop
of Tours, a man of senatorial family in Auvorgnc,
and of large estates, which he bequeathed to the
churches of those towns where they were
situated. At Tours he heightened the church
of SS. Gervasius and Protasius, beneath and
adjoining the walls, and commenced, but did not
live to complete, the basilica of St. Mary beneath
the wall. He died after an episcopate of either
three or four years and five months, and was
buried in the basilica of St. Martin at Tours.
The Gall. Chr. gives him the alternative name
of Martius, and from the Chronicle of Tours puts
his accession to the see in 521 (Greg. Tur.
H. F. iii. 17, x. 31 ; Bouquet, ii. 387 note; Gall.
Chr. xiv. 17). [C. H.]
OMOLINGC, OMULUNG. [Homoltooh.]
OMOTARIUS, bishop of Laon late in the
seventh century {QaU. Chr. ix. 512). [C. H.]
ONASUS, of Segesta, an opponent of Jerome
in Rome (anno 384). He had taken some of
Jerome's satirical descriptions as personal to
himself. Jerome writes a jeering and unseemly
letter about him to Marcella {Ep. 40, ed. Vail.),
plaviug upon his name as derived from tvos or
from Nasus. [W. H. F.]
OKCHTJ (Ohchojj, Oxchuo), Mac-in-Eccis
(son of the poet), poet in Connaught in
the middle of the 6th century, embraced the
Christian faith and settled at Clonmore, co.
Cnrlow or Wexford ; he set himself to gather
relics of all the Irish saints into one shrine.
His feast is Feb. 8, where Colgan {Acta SS.
276-7) and 0*Hanlon {Ir. SS. ii. 402 sq.) have
memoirs. [J. G.]
ONESICRATIA, n lady, a correspondent
of Chrysostom's, to whom he wrote, from
Citcusus, a letter of consolation on the death
of her daughter, which had speedily followed
some previous bereavement. (Chrys. Ep. 192.)
[E.V.]
ONESIMUS (1), bishop of Ephesus, sent by
the Ephesian church to meet Ignatius at Smyrna
on his way to Rome. (I gnat, ad Eph. 2 ; see also
Euseb. iii. 35.) ' [G. S.]
ONESIMUS (8), TITUS FLAVIUS, re-
puted husband of Flavia Domitilla, daughter of
Clement the martyr, and grandniece of Domitian.
The name of Tit. Flav. Onesimus appears on two
inscriptions in Gruter {Corp. Ins. pp. ccxlv. and
eclii.), one being a monument erected by him to
his wife. The whole question about the Domi-
tillas is in a state of confusion which these in-
scriptions increase since tradition represents the
younger Domitilla as living a virgin. [G. T. S.]
ONESIMUS (3) a correspondent of Meuto
ofSardis. See Vol. HI. p. 896 a. [G. S-l
ONESIMUS (4), ST., bishop of Soissons,
said to have destroyed the remains of idolatry
in that region {Gall. Chr. ix. 334). The Bol-
landists {Acta SS. 13 Mai. iii. 204) give a Vibt
of him with notes by Henschen, who assigns
him to the year c 360. [C. H.]
Digitized by
Google
80
ONESIMUS
ONESIMUS (5), bishop of Nieomedia in
Bithynia in latter part of the 4th century.
(Le Quien, Or. Christ, i. 587 ; Philostorg. H. E.
i. T.) [G. T. S.]
ONESIMUS (6), one of those who at the
Council of the Oak bore testimony against
Chrysostom or urged the council to come to a
speedy decision. (Phot. lix. p. 60.) [E. V.]
ONESIMUS (7), the name of two persons
addressed by Nilus; a monk (lib. ii. ep. 84), a
primate (ii. 177). [C. H.]
ONESIPHOEUS, bishop of Iconium about
A.D. 450. He was present at the general
council of Chalcedon, and also at the Robber-
synod of Ephesus, 449. He declared at Chalcedon
that he had opposed the proceedings of Diosco-
rus at Ephesus. (Hefele's Councils, — Clark's
translation, iii. 254, 314 ; Mansi, vi. 827.)
[G. T. S.]
ONIAS, a pupil (under a fancy name, and
not otherwise known) of Alcuin {Epp. 124, 183,
ed. Frob.), who addresses him as a sacerdoa c
A.D. 800 (Epp. 230, 231, 227, 228) ; he is also
one of those to whom Alcuin addressed his work
on Ecclesiastes, A.D. 802. [CANDIDTTS (16).]
(Alcuin, Opp. i. 148, 292,410, in Pat. Lat. t. c.)
[R. J. K.]
ONOEL. [Hebdomas, Vol. IL 850, o.]
ONUPHBIUS (1) (Onofiuo, Honofrio),
June 12, an Egyptian solitary, who left the
monks of the Thebaid, with whom he had been
brought up, for the remoter solitude of n spot
named Calidonna. Here he lived in a cave for
seventy years, cheered by the annual visits of a
holy man, when the anchoret Paphnutius in his
journeyings discovered him, having more the
appearance of a wild beast than of a man. As
Onuphrius was narrating the story of his life an
extreme pallor was observed to spread over his
face, and he intimated that his end was near and
that his visitor wonld bury him ; then blessing
Paphnutius and committing his spirit to God he
expired. Paphnutius wrapped the body in a
portion of his own cloak and laid it in a crevice
of the rock. (Kosweyd, Fit. Pat. p. 99 ; Boll.
Acta SS. 12 Jun. ii. 527 ; Tillem. x. 49, 723.)
Mrs. Jameson {Legend. Art, ii. 280) describes a
picture in the Louvre of which Onuphrius is the
subject. [R. J. K.]
ONUPHRIUS (2) (HONOPHKIU8), a soli-
tary of Emesa in Phoenicia, by whose prayers
Lencippe, the wife of Clitophon, is said to have
been relieved of her barrenness upon her for-
saking paganism, and to have become the
mother of St. Galacteon. (Rosweyd, Vit. Pat.
p. 99 ; Surins, De Prob. SS. Hist. iv. 158.)
[R. J. K.]
OPHELIUS (1), a grammaticus addressed
by Isidore of Pelusium (lib. i. Epp. 11, 86,
ii. 42, 55, 119, 255, 273, iii. 31, 70, 92, 93, 94,
iv. 105, 162, 200); (2) a scholasticus (ii. 154,
201). [C.H.]
OPHELLUS. [Ofeixus.]
OPHIANITAE, heretics, in the list of
Sophronius (Mansi, xi. 850 D). In Hardouin's
- rersion they appear as 'KQovnal and Aphonitae
"Hard. ui. 1291 A> [C. H.]
OPHITES
OPHITES ['O^iovof, Clem. Alex., Or!;.;
'Octroi, Hippol., Epiph.] Among the peculiari-
ties of several of the Gnostic sects of the 2nd
century, there was one which was felt by mem-
bers of the church as most striking and most
offensive, namely, that the symbol of the serpent,
which to Christians generally represented the
source of all evil and the enemy of the human
race, was by these heretics held in reverence and
honour. Accordingly, though "Gnostics" was
the title which these people claimed for them-
selves (Hippol. Rtf. v. 1, 11), the Catholics
called them Ophites, or else, in places where it
was the Hebrew word for serpent, Nahash,
whichappeared in their mythologies, Naassenes;
and ultimately some of themselves took pride in
those titles. It is so natural to regard as most
fundamental that characteristic which gives the
name to a sect, that it is useful to remember
that this name Ophite seems to have been at
first imposed from without, and that the cha-
racteristic from which it is derived was common
to many of the Gnostic sects, and in most of
them was not entitled to be counted their most
prominent feature.
The honour paid to the serpent in these
sects may be traced to a twofold origin. Gnostic
speculation busied itself much with the problem
of the origin of evil, and the favourite solution
was that evil was inherent in matter. It fol-
lowed that the God of the Jews to) whom the
Old Testament ascribes the creation of matter
had therein done a bad work, and therefore that
he could not be identical with the Supreme
Good God. When the Old Testament went on to
relate how the serpent had offered to teach our
first parents knowledge and to make them wise,
and how the Creator God had cursed them for
embracing this offer, it was a consistent theory
to maintain, that in this the serpent had shewn
himself to be the friend of the human race, and
the Creator its enemy. We seem thus to hare s
sufficient account of the use of the serpent as an
emblem of wisdom, and of the honour paid it by
those who held it to be a point of duty to run
counter to the God of the Je ws. Butin truth vene-
ration of the serpent appears to be of earlierdate
than opposition to Judaism. We cannot pretend
to trace the history of the totems or animal
symbols which different tribes regarded a*
peculiarly their own: bat there is sufficient
evidence that in the countries where Gnosticism
most flourished, a heathen use of the serpent
emblem had previously existed. Sanchoniathon,
quoted by busebius, in a chapter containing
several notices of ancient serpent worship
(JPraep. Evan. i. 10), tells of the honour paid the
serpent by the Phoenicians. They admired the
quickness of its motions though destitute of the
instruments of locomotion employed by other
animals. They observed how, by casting it*
skin it renewed its youth, and they not only
ascribed to it great length and tenacity of life,
but even fancied that except by violence from
without it would never die. A religious use of
the serpent emblem was common to the Phoeni-
cians with the Egyptians. We may indeed iden-
tify the names of the Phoenician Taaut and the
Egyptian divinity Thoth, both of which are con-
nected with serpent worship. The Egyptian*
are said by the same authority to have derived
from the Phoenicians the name agathodacnionr
Digitized by
Google
OPHITES
which • later writer (Lamprid. Tit. Heliogah.)
tells a* was given to the pet snakes which they
kept. The serpent represented the vital prin-
ciple of nature, the world being symbolized by a
figure like the Greek theta, a circle with a soake
in the middle. In the same chapter of Eusebius,
Pherecydes Syrius is said to hare derived from
the Phoenicians his representations of the god
Ophioneus as serpent-formed; but as we know
from Celsos (Origen, vi. 42) that Ophioneus was
described as a Titan and an opponent of Kronos,
Pherecydes would seem to have more in common
with those who made the serpent typify the evil
rather than the good principle. For the pur-
poses of this article, however, it is needless to
ascertain the details of ancient serpent worship ;
H is enough to know in a general way that
there was snch a thing, for then we can under-
stand that among the eclectic speculators, included
among those known by the name of Gnostics, who
adopted only such elements of Christianity as
harmonized with their system, there would be
some whose previous training would indispose
them to share that hostility to the serpent
which was common to Christianity and Judaism,
and who wonld be willing to give the emblem
an honourable place in their schemes. Accord-
ingly in one Gnostic system (Iren. I. xxz. 5),
Nous, the source of intelligence, is serpent-
formed ; in another (I. xxx. 14), Sophia herself is
identified with the serpent. As members of the
church were ingenious in finding the figure of
the cross in different objects, natural or artificial,
so these Gnostics were equally ingenious in dis-
covering the figure of the serpent. By anyone
who would lift up his eyes with intelligence it
might be seen holding a presiding place among
the constellations of heaven (Hippol. v. 16, p.
134). It was to be seen in the form of the
brain (Hippol. ir. 51, p. 91, v. 17, p. 137), and
in the convolutions of the intestines (Iren. I.
xxx. 14). It was the serpent who gave wise
counsel to Eve, the serpent rod by which Moses
wrought his miracles, the brazen serpent which
gave deliverance to the perishing people in the
wilderness, it was he in whose likeness the Son
of Man was to be lifted up (Hippol. v. 18,
p. 133) ; nay, the serpent was identified with
the Logos Son. But perhaps even the wildest
extravagance of Ophite theory was not so revolt-
ing to Christians as a practice with some of
these Gnostics to allow the tame snakes which
we have already mentioned, to crawl about and
sanctify their Eucharistic bread, thus, as it
seemed from a Christian point of view, binding
themselves to the author of evil by a sacrament
of abomination (Hs.-Tert. 6; Epiph. Haer. xxxrii.
5, p. 272). The story is repeated by Angustine
{Haer. 17) and improved on by " Praedestine-
tus"(i. 17).
In what precedes we have collected the prin-
cipal characteristics which justify the applica-
tion of the name Ophite to these sects : but as
we hare already intimated, the name has been
applied to sects of different degrees of antiquity,
and differing a good deal in their principles. It
is advi-able therefore to state separately what
we learn from different sources of information.
The OiMtes of Irenaeus. — Irenaeus having
given (1. xxiii.-xxriii.)in what seems intended for
chronological order, a list of heresies, beginning
with Simon and ending withTatian, adds in a kind
CHBIST. BIOOB. — VOL. IV.
OPHITES
81
of appendix a description of a rariety of Gm stie
sects deriring their origin, as he maintains,
from the heresy of Simon. Irenaeus does not
use the name " Ophite," but Thcodoret, who
copies his description, gives that title to them,
and he has been followed by later writers.
This system gave the following account of the
origin of things. The first principle was a light
dwelling in By thus, blessed and incorruptible,
which these heretics called the Father of all and
the First Man. His Thought or Conception
became a Son, which they called the Second Man,
and alter these was the Holy Spirit, which they
called the First Woman, the mother of all living,
the name for spirit in Shemitic languages being
feminine. [On this trinity see Vol. II. p. 683.]
Beneath lay, in a sluggish mass, the four ele-
ments, viz. water, darkness, abyss, and chaos;
while above these moved the Holy Spirit. And
of her beauty both first and second Man became
enamoured, and they generated from her a third
male, an Incorruptible Light, called Christ. But
the excess of light with which she had been
impregnated was more than she could contain,
and while Christ her right-hand birth was
borne upward with his mother, forming with
the First and Second Man the true holy church,
a drop of light fell on the left hand downwards
into the world of matter, and was called Sophia
and Prunikos. By this arrival the still waters
were set in motion, all things rushing to embrace
the Light, and Prunikos wantonly playing with
the waters, assumed to herself a body, with-
out the protection of which the light was in
danger of being completely absorbed by matter.
Vet when oppressed by the grossness of her
surroundings, she strove to escape the waters
and ascend to her mother, the body weighed bet
down, and she could do no more than arch
herself above the waters, constituting thus the
visible heaven. In process of time, however,
by intensity of desire she was able to free her-
self from the encumbrance of the body, and
leaving it behind to ascend to the region imme-
diately above, called in the language of another
sect the middle region. Meanwhile a son, Ialda-
baoth, born to her from her contact with the
waters, haring in him a certain breath of the
incorruptible light left him from his mother, by
means of which he works, generates from the
waters a son without any mother. And this son
in like manner another, until there were seven
in all, ruling the seven heavens, Ialdabaoth,
lao, Sabaoth, Adoneus, Eloaens, Oreus, Asta-
phaeus; a Hebdomad which their mother com-
pletes into an Ogdoad. [See the article Heb-
domad, Vol. U. p. 850.1 But it came to pass
that these sons strove for mastery with their
father Ialdabaoth, whereat he suffered great
affliction, and casting his despairing gaze on the
dregs of matter below, he, through them, con-
solidated bis longing and obtained a sou Ophio-
morphus, the serpent-formed Nous, whence come
the spirit and soul, and all things of this lower
world ; but whence came also oblivion, wicked-
ness, jealousy, envy, and death. Ialdabaoth,
stretching himself over his upper heaven, had
shut out from all below the knowledge that
there was anything higher than himself, and
being puffed up with pride at the sons whom he
had begotten without help from his mother, he
cried, 1 am Father and God, and above me
G
Digitized by
Google
82
OPHITES
there is none other. On this his mother, hearing
him, cried out, Do not lie, Ialdabaoth, for above
thee is the father of all, the first man, and the
son of man. When the heavenly powers mar-
yelled at this voice, Ialdabaoth, to call off their
attention, exclaimed, " Let us make man after oar
image." Then the six powers formed a gigantic
man, the mother Sophia having given assistance to
the design, in order that by this means she might
recover the Light-fluid from Ialdabaoth. For
the man whom the six powers had formed, lay
unable to raise itself, writhing like a worm
until they brought it to their father, who
breathed into it the breath of life, and so
emptied himself of his power. But the
man having now Thought and Conception (Nous
and Enthymesis), forthwith gave thanks to the
First Man, disregarding those who had made him.
At this Ialdabaoth, being jealous, planned to
despoil the man by means of a woman, and formed
Eve, of whose beauty the six powers being ena-
moured generated sons from her, namely, the
angels. Then Sophia devised by means of the
serpent to seduce Eve and Adam to transgress
the precept of Ialdabaoth ; and Eve, accepting
the advice of one who seemed a Son of God,
persuaded Adam also to eat of the forbidden
tree. And when they ate they gained know-
ledge of the power whioh is over all, and re-
volted from those who had made them. There-
upon Ialdabaoth cast Adam and Eve out of
Paradise ; but the mother had seoretly emptied
them of the Light-fluid in order that it might
net share the curse or reproach. So they were
«ast down into this world, as was also the ser-
pent who had been detected in working against
his father. He brought the angels here under
his power, and himself generated six sons, a
counterpart of the Hebdomad of which his
father was a member. These seven demons
always oppose and thwart the human race on
whose account their father was cast down.
Adam and Eve at first had light and clear
and, as it were, spiritual bodies, whioh on their
fall became dull and gross ; and their spirits
were also languid because they had lost all but
-the breath of this lower world which their maker
had breathed into them ; until Prunikos taking
pity on them gave them back the sweet odour
of the Light-fluid through which they woke to
a knowledge of themselves and knew that
they were naked. The story proceeds to give
a version of Old Testament history, in which
Ialdabaoth Is represented as making a series of
efforts to obtain exclusive adoration for himself,
and to avenge himself on those who refused to
pay it, while he is counteracted by Prunikos,
who strives to enlighten mankind as to the
existence of higher powers more deserving of
adoration. In particular the prophets who (as
explained Vol. II. p. 850) were each the organ of
one of the Hebdomad, the glorification of whom
was their main theme, were nevertheless inspired
by Sophia to make fragmentary revelations about
the First Man and about Christ above, whose
descent also she caused to be predicted.
And here we come to the version given of New
Testament history in this system. Sophia,
having no rest either in heaven or on earth,
implored the assistance of her mother, the First
Woman. She, moved with pity at her daughter's
repentance, begged of the First Man that Christ
OPHITES
should be sent down to her assistance. Sophia,
apprized of the coming help, announced his
advent by John, prepared the baptism of re-
pentance, and by means of her son, Ialdabaoth,
got ready a woman to receive the annunciation
from Christ, in order that when he came there
might be a pure and clean vessel to receive
him, namely Jesus, who, being born of a virgin
by divine power, was wiser, purer, and more
righteous than any other man. Christ then
descended through the seven heavens, taking the
form of the sons of each as he came down, and
depriving each of their rulers of his power. For
wheresoever Christ came the Light-fluid rushed
to him, and when he came into this world he
first united himself with his sister Sophia, and
they refreshed one another as bridegroom and
bride, and the two united descended into Jesus,
who thus became Jesus Christ. Then he began
to work miracles, and to announce the unknown
Father, and to declare himself manifestly the
son of the First Man. Then Ialdabaoth and the
other princes of the Hebdomad, being angry,
sought to have Jesus crucified, but Christ and
Sophia did not share his passion, having with-
drawn themselves into the incorruptible Aeon.
But Christ did not forget Jesus, but sent a
power which raised his body up, not indeed his
choical body, for "flesh and blood cannot lay
hold of the kingdom of God," bnt his animal
and spiritual body. So it was that Jesus did no
miracles, either before his baptism, when he was
first united to Christ, or after his resurrection,
when Christ had withdrawn himself from him.
Jesus then remained on earth after his resurrec-
tion eighteen months, at first himself not under-
standing the whole truth, but enlightened by a
revelation subsequently made him, which he
taught to a chosen few of his disciples, and then
was taken up to heaven.
We need not doubt that the Gnostic doc-
trine here expounded claimed to be derived
from the revelation thus mode to the chosen
few (see the article Plffrw SOPHIA, where
an account is given of a later work of this
school). The story proceeds to tell that Christ,
sitting on the right hand of the father Ialda-
baoth, without his knowledge efirlohes himself
with the souls of those who had known him,
inflicting a corresponding loss on Ialdabaoth.
For as righteous souls instead of returning to
him are united to Christ, Ialdabaoth is less and
less able to bestow any of the Light-fluid on
souls afterwards entering this world, and can
only breathe into them his own animal breath.
The consummation of all things will take place
when, by successive union of righteous souls
with Christ, the last drop • of the Light-fluid
shall be recovered from this lower world.
The system here expounded evidently implies
a considerable knowledge of the Old Testament
on the part either of its inventor or expounder.
It begins with " the spirit of God moving on
the face of the waters, and it summarises the
subsequent history, even mentioning the sacred
writers by name. Yet that it is not the work
of one brought up in Judaism is evident from
the hostility shewn to the God of the Jews, who
is represented as a mixture of arrogance and
ignoranoe, waging war against idolatry from mere
love of self-exaltation, yet constantly thwarted
and overcome by the skill of superior know*
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
OPHITES
ledge. We have already remarked that the
feminise attributes ascribed to the Holy Spirit
indicate that Greek was not the native lan-
guage of the framer of this system, and
this conclusion is confirmed by the absence
of elements derived from Greek philosophic
systems. If, for instance, we compare this
system with that of Valentinns, we discover at
once so much agreement in essential features as
to assure us of the substantial identity of the
foundation of the two systems ; but the Valen-
tioian system contains several things derived
from Greek philosophy, whereas that which we
hare described can be explained from purely
Oriental sources. We are entitled therefore to
regard the latter as representing the more origi-
nal form. The reporter of this system is clearly
acqoainted with the Mew Testament, since he
adopt* a phrase from the Epistle to the Corin-
thians; he knows that our Lord habitually
spoke of himself as Son of Han; and in deny-
ing that onr Lord performed miracles before his
baptism, he adopts the history as told in onr
Gospels in opposition to that told in apocryphal
Gospels of the Infancy. We have already re-
marked (II. 683) that the place which the doc-
trine of *> Trinity holds in this system indicates
that it proceeds from one who had received
Christian instruction.
Although, following Theodoret, we have given
the name Ophite to the system described by
Irenaeus, it will have been seen that not only
ooes the doctrine concerning the serpent form a
nty subordinate part of the system, bnt also
that the place it assigns the serpent is very
<fcflereal from that given it by those whom we
count as properly to be called Ophites. For this
tame we think properly belongs to those who
jare the serpent the place of honour in their
trstem, bat the present system agrees with
Christian doctrine in making the serpent and his
attendant demons the enemy and persecutor of
toe human race. If we were to single out what
we regard as the most characteristic feature of
the scheme, it is the prominence given to the
attribute of light as the property of the good
principle. This feature is still more striking in
the derived system of Pistia Sophia, where the
station of light is of perpetual occurrence, and
the dignity of every being is measured by the
Brilliancy of its light. It is natural to imagine
a conmuoon with the system of Zoroaster, in
waica. the history of the world is made to be a
straggle between the kingdom of light and the
kingdom °f darkness. This suspicion is con-
fcrnted when we refer to what Plutarch tells
of the. system of Zoroaster (fie Is. et Onr. 47),
for we there find other coincidences with our
system, which can scarcely be accidental. In the
Persian system, the opposing powers, Ormnzd
nd Ahriman, each generate six derived beings
to aid in the contest, precisely in the same way
that Ialdabaoth and Ophiouorphus have each
the co-operation of six subordinate and derived
beings. The story of Sophia stretching out her
i-ody so as to form the visible heavens has a
I«nllei in •• similar myth told about Ormuzd
enlarging his bulk, and there is a likeness to
Ophite doctrine m the account which Zoroaster
gives of our resurrection bodies, which are to be
w> dear and subtle as to cast no shadow, (See
•al=« the Persian representations of seven heavens
OPHITES
83
and an eighth region above them (Orig. Adv. Celt.
ri. 22).) On the whole there seems good reason
to believe that the Gnostic system described by
Irenaeus is the work of a disciple of Zoroaster,
half-converted to Christianity. As to his obliga-
tions to previous Gnostic systems, see Sator-
ninus. In the section of Irenaeus immediately
preceding that of which we have just given an
account, there is a summary of a system which
has been called Barbeliot, from its use of the
name Babiielo to denote the supreme female
principle. It contains some of the essential
features of the scheme just described, of which
it seems to have been a development, principally
characterized by a great wealth of nomenclature,
and, with the exception of the name which has
given a title to the system, all derived from the
Greek language. Again, in the passage imme-
diately following the chapter we hare analysed,
Irenaeus shews acquaintance with a. section of
the school who may be called Ophite in the
proper sense of the word, some teaching that
Sophia herself was the serpent, some glorifying
Cain and other enemies of the God of the Old
Testament See Cainites.
The Ophites of Clement and Origen. — Clement
of Alexandria incidentally mentions Cainites and
Ophites {Strom, vii. 17, p. 900), bnt gives no
explanation of their tenets. Nor do we suppose
that there is any reason to connect with this
sect his reprobation of the use of serpent orna-
ments by women (Paed. ii. 13, p. 245).
Origen is led to speak of the Ophites (Adv.
Celt. vi. 28 sqq.) by an accusation of Celsus that
the Christians counted seven heavens, and spoke
of the Creator as an accursed divinity, inasmuch
as he was worthy of execration for cursing the
serpent who introduced the first human beings
to the knowledge of good and evil. Origen
replies that Celsus had mixed up matters, and
had confounded with the Christians the Ophites,
who so far from being Christians would not hear
the name of Jesus, nor own him to have been so
much as a wise and virtuous man, nor would
admit anyone into their assembly until he had
cursed Jesus. It may be doubted whether Origen
has not here [been misinform edaboota sect of which
he intimates that he knows but little. Accord-
ing to all other authorities the Ophites claimed
to be Christians. Elsewhere (Comm. in St. Matt.
iii. 852) Origen classes the Ophites as heretics of
the graver sort with the followers of Marcion,
Valentinus, Basilides, and Apelles. The identity
of the nomenclature proves that these Ophites
of Origen are a branch of the Zoroastrian sect
described by Irenaeus, and therefore justifies our
application of the name Ophite to that sect.
The names of the seven princes of the Hebdo-
mad, as given by Origen, agree completely with
the list of Irenaeus. Origen also gives the
names of the seven demons. [See Hebdomad,
Vol. II. p. 850.] Irenaeus only gives the name
of their chief, but that one is enough to establish
a more than accidental coincidence, since it U a
name we should not have expected to find as
the name of a demon, namely, Michael. The
name Prunikos is also found in the report of
Origen. Origen gives what must have been one
of the valuable secrets of this sect, viz. the
formula to be addressed by an ascending soul
to each of the princes of the hebdomad in
order to propitiate him to grant a passage
Digitized by
Google
84
0PHITE3
through his dominions. Perhaps the secret
would hare been more jealously guarded if it
were not that in addition to the use of the
formula, it seems to hare been necessary to
produce at each gate a certain symbol. These
would only be in the possession of the initiated,
and we may imagine that they were buried with
them. We may note a point of which Origen does
not seem tohave been himself aware, namely, that
he gives the formulae in the inverse order ; i.e.
first the formula to be nsed by a soul which has
passed through the highest heaven and desires to
enter the Ogdoad ; next the formula to be used
in order to gain admission to the highest heaven,
and so on. Origen also gives a description of an
Ophite diagram, which Celsus likewise had met
with, consisting of an outer circle, named
Leviathan, denoting the soul of all things, with
ten internal circles, variously coloured, the
diagram containing also the figures and names
of the seven demons. Matter (Hhtoire du Gnos-
ticistne, II., p. 221 ; plate I. D.) attempts to re-
produce the figure from Origen's description, but
in truth Origen has not given us particulars
enough to enable us to make a restoration with
confidence, or even to enable us to understand
what was intended to be represented. In all
probability the picture was not intended to
explain or illustrate anything, but merely was
supposed to possess some magical virtue. Origen
names Euphrates as the introducer of the doc-
trine of the sect which he describes, whence we
may conjecture [see Euphrates (1)] that the
sect may have been that branch of the Ophites
who are called Peratae.
Tha Ophites of Hippolytus. — The method by
which Lipsius has attempted to recover the lost
earlier treatise of Hippolytus has been explained
(Vol. III. p. 93). This treatise appears to have
contained a section on the Ophites, following
that on the Nicolaitans, with whom they were
brought into connexion. Philaster has trans-
posed this and two other sections, beginning his
treatise on Heresies with the Ophites, and making
the Ophites, Cainites, and Sethites pre-Christian
sects. We may set this aside as a mere blunder,
into which Philaster was led by the names.
The section of Hippolytus appears to have given
a condensed account of the mythological story
told by Irenaeus. In giving the name Ophite,
however, he appears to have brought into
greater prominence than Irenaeus the charac-
teristics of the sect indicated by the word, their
honour of the serpent, whom they even preferred
to Christ, their venerating him because he taught
our first parents the knowledge of good and evil,
their use of the references to the brazen serpent
in the Old and New Testament, and their intro-
duction of the serpent into their Eucharistic
celebration.
The great difference between the earlier and
the later treatise of Hippolytus is that the former
was a mere compilation, his account of the
opinions of heresies being in the main derived
from the lectures of Irenaeus ; but at the time
of writing the latter, he had himself read seve-
ral heretical writings, of which he gives an
extract in his treatise. In this book he makes
a contemptnous mention of the Ophites in com-
pany with the Cainites and Nochaitae (viii. 20)
as heretics whose doctrines did not deserve the
compliment of serious exposition or refutation.
OPHITE8
And it is strange that he does not seem to sus-
pect that these heretics have any connection
with those who form the subject of hi* fifth
book. In that book he treats of sects which
paid honour to the serpent, giving to the first
of these sects the name Naassenes, a title which
he knows is derived from the Hebrew name for
serpent. Possibly Hippolytus restricted the
name Ophites to the sect described by Irenaeus,
which has very little in common with that-
which he calls Naassenes. Another identifica-
tion which Hippolytus failed to make has also
been overlooked by, as far as we know, alt his
previous readers. The two first sections of the
5th book treat of the Naassenes and the Peratae,
and no doubt give an account of two distinct
works which fell into the hands of Hippolytus,
and which he supposed to represent the opi-
nions of two distinct sects of heretics. But sv
careful comparison of the two sections shews
that both works must have reached Hippolytus
from the same quarter, both having evidently
proceeded from the same workshop. The doc-
trines of the heretics of the two sections agree
so completely that the statements of the one
may be used to clear up obscurities in the state-
ments of the other, several technical words are
common to the two sections, and in both the
same not very obvious illustrations are em-
ployed. Before giving the detailed proof ot
these assertions, it will be convenient to state
the doctrines of each sect as described by Hip-
polytus.
The book of the sect which he calls Naassenes,
a name not heard of elsewhere, professed to
contain heads of discourses communicated by
James, the Lord's brother, to Mariamne. A
very interesting feature of the book seems to*
have been the specimens it gave of Ophite hymu-
ology. The doctrine has little in common
with the Zoroastrion Ophites described by Ire-
naeus, the contrast for instance between light
and darkness not being once insisted on. The
writer is in fact not Oriental, but Greek. He
does indeed use the Hebrew words Noas and
Caulacau, but (see Vols. I. 425, III. 589) these
words had already passed into the common here-
tical vocabulary so as to become known to many
unacquainted with Hebrew. He does shew a
knowledge of the religious mysteries of various,
nations, yet as it appears to us not a persona),
but a literary knowledge. For instance, he
dilates much on the Phrygian rites, but the
whole section seems to be but a commentary on
a hymn to the Phrygian Attys which had fallen
into his hands. It must be remembered that
without ever leaving Rome there was oppor-
tunity to become acquainted with the religions
rites of various nations.
The Naassenes so far agreed with other Ophites
that they gave to the first principle the names
Man and Son of Man, calling him in their
hymns Adamas. Instead, however, of retaining
the female principle of the Oriental Ophites,
they represented their " Man " as bisexual ; and
hence one of their hymns runs " From thee,
father, through thee, mother, the two immortal
names." See this also quoted under MoNOorus
(Hippol. Jtef. viii. 12, p. 269). Compare also
Irenaeus, i. 29, " refrigerant in hoc omnia hymni-
zare magnum Aeona. Hinc antem dicunt mani-
festatam Matrem, Patrem, Filium." Although
Digitized by
Google
OPHITES
the coincidence here is bat slight, it deserves
•am* attention, because Irenaens's section re-
ferred to contains some Naassene technical words,
Ananias, Autogenes, Tirginalis sptritns ; and these
Barbeliots of irenaeus appear to have taught a
Greek form of Ophite doctrine. To return to
the Naassenes, they taught that their primary
man was, like Geryon, threefold, containing in
himself the three natures to votpiv, to i|>vxi-
xir, to xoXxir ; and so that in Jesus the three
aatnres were combined, and throngh him speak
to these different classes of men. From the
Uring waters which he supplies each absorbs
that for which his nature has attraction. From
the same water the olive can draw its oil, and
the Tine its wine, and in like manner each other
plant its special produce : chaff will be attracted
by amber, iron only by the magnet, gold only
or the prickle of the sea-hawk,* so each accord-
ing to bis nature attracts and imbibes a different
supply from the same source. Thus there are
three classes of men and three corresponding
churches, angelical, psychical, and choical, whose
names are elect, called, captive. We should
imagine that these indicate (1) the heathen chiefly
captive under the dominion of matter. (2) ordinary
Christiana, and (3) out of the many called, the
few chosen members of the Naassene sect. Else-
where, however, a greater diversity of men is
indicated. For the Saviour, we are told, said,
"Unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood,
ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven ; but
even if ye drink the cup that I drink of, whither
I go ye cannot come." For every one must go
to his own nature. Therefore It was that he
chose twelve apostles for the twelve tribes, and
by them spoke to every tribe. So all men can-
not receive the preaching of all the twelve, but
each only according to his own nature.
The Naassene work known to Hippolytus
would seem to have been of what we may call a
devotional character rather than a formal expo-
sition of doctrine, and this perhaps is why it is
difficult to draw from the accounts left us a
thoroughly consistent scheme. Thus, as we
proceed, we are led to think of the first principle
of nature, not as a single threefold being, but as
three distinct substances ; on the one hand the
pre-existent, otherwise spoken of as the Good
Being, on the other hand the *' outpoured Chaos,"
intermediate, between these one called Autogenes,
aad also the Logos. Chaos is naturally desti-
tute of forms or qualities ; neither does the pre-
existent being himself possess form, for though
the cause of everything that comes into being,
it is Uself none of them, but only the seed from
which they spring. The Logos is the mediator
which draws forms from above and transfers
them to the world below. Vet he seems to
have a rival in this work ; for we have refer-
ence made to a fourth being, whence or how
brought into existence we are not told, a " fiery
<3od," £saldaeus, k the father of the iSucot Kia/uts.
That is to say, if we understand the theory
rightly, it was this fiery being, the same who
OPHITES
85
• *«<p«Is taXaaviov Upturn." I don't know what this
**j Is. nor have I seen elsewhere this remarkable pro-
perty of its bone.
» Schneidewin unwarrantably edits Isldabaoth, the
tact being that this system differs altogether In Its no-
; tram that of the Zoroaetrlc Ophites.
appeared to Hoses in the burning bush, who
gave forms to the choical or purely material
parts of nature. It is he who supplies tha
fiery heat of generation by which these forms
are still continued, in this work the Logos
had no part, for " all things were made through
him, and without him was made nothing." The
" nothing " that was made without him is the
Kiopat lSuc6t. On the other hand, it is the
Logos, who is identified with the serpent, and
this again with the principle of Water, who
brings down the pneumatic and psychical ele-
ments, so that through him man became a
living soul. But he has now to do a greater
work, namely, to provide for the release of the
higher elements now enslaved under the domi-
nion of matter, and for their restoration to the
good God. For the restoration of the chosco
seed an essential condition is the complete aban-
donment of sexual intercourse. The captive
people must pass out of Egypt; Egypt is the
body, the Red Sea the work of generation ; to
cross the Red Sea and pass into the wilderness
is to arrive at a state where that work of gene-
ration has been forsaken. Thus they arrive at
the Jordan. This is the Logos through whose
streams rolling downward forms had descended
from above, and generations of mortal men had
taken place ; but now Jesus, like bis Old Testa-
ment namesake, rolls the stream upwards, and
then takes plnce a generation not of men, but of
gods, for to this name the new-born seed may
lay claim (Ps. lxxxii. 6). But if they return to
Egypt, that is to carnal intercourse, " they
shall die like men." For that which is born
from below is fleshly and mortal, that which is
born from above is spiritual and immortal.
The specimens already given present but a
faint idea of the author's tyrannical method of
Scripture exegesis by which he can prove any
doctrine out of any text. One or two speci-
mens more must suffice. In " aTxvpo&vrriy Kartp-
ya(6iitni," which occurs ic St. Paul's description
of the evil deeds of the Gentiles (Kom. i. 27),
kaxnuoabeTi is explained to mean the formless-
ness of the blessed pre-existent Being, r) aaxt-
H&Turroi oiicla. Again, it ts explained that the
publicans (rikSytu) who go first into the king-
dom of God, are we upon whom the ends of the
world (t« riXri r&v aliivur) have come. The
writer, it will be seen, makes free use of the
New Testament. He seems to have used all the
four Gospels, but that of which be makes most
use is St. John's. He quotes from Paul's
epistles to the Romans, Corinthians (both letters),
Galatians, and Ephesians. There is a copious
use also of the Old Testament ; and besides we
are told there is a use of the Gospel according to
the Egyptians, and that of St. Thomas. But
what most characterizes the document under
consideration is the abundant use of heathen
writings. For the author's method of exegesis
enables him to find his system in Homer with as
much ease as in the Bible. Great part of the
extract given by Hippolytus is a commentary on
a hymn to the Phrygian Attys, all the epithets
applied to whom are shewn when etymologically
examined, to be capable of a Naassene interpre-
tation. One or two specimens of the etymology
will suffice. Every temple, rait, shews by its
title that it is intended for the honour of the
serpent yias. Again, one of tha first of the titles
Digitized by
Google
86
:OPHITES
OPHITES
applied td Attys is rdttat,. Here* we are taught
to recognise him who brought to rest (tVowre)
all the disorderly motion that prevailed before
his appearing. To him all things cry ravt,
xoii«, riir Surofupavtcw. In like manner it is ex-
plained that, in this hymn, ai*6\os does not mean
a goatherd, nor iftiyta\ot an almond, but the
reader will not care to be informed of the mys-
teries which these words contain. This eiegesis
can be paralleled by anyone who has chanced to
■ meet some of the insane documents which in onr
own days are issued from time to time by crazy
persons who fancy themselves to be inspired, and
who are able to find support for their preten-
sions in texts of Scripture used with utter dis-
regard of their context. According to our view
the Naassene writer under consideration was a per-
son of this kind, not a philosopbio writer, nor the
originator of the Ophite system which he teaches,
but one trained up in it, and proud to give new
proofs and illustrations of it of his own discovery.
Although the myths of the earlier Ophite sys-
tem are but lightly touched on, there is some
trace of an acquaintance with them, as for ex-
ample the myth that the first created mnn lay
crawling until a spirit was poured into him from
above, and the story of the descent of Christ
through the seven heavens on his mission to
release the higher elements imprisoned in chaos.
We turn now to the section which treats of
the Peratae. It had been known from Clement of
Alexandria that there was a sect of that name,
though he tells nothing as to its tenets. Hippo-
lytus was acquainted with more books of the sect
than one. One called ol vpoiaTtiot appears to
have been of an astrological character, treating
of the influence of the stars upon the human
race, and connecting various heathen mythologies
with the planetary powers. For the astrology
of the Naassene writer, see p. 102. But there
was besides a treatise the resemblance of the
doctrine of which to that previously described as
Naassene we have already remarked. According
to this, the world is one, but admits of a
threefold division, Tor-rfp, vUt, 0Ai). Each of
these parts contains in itself an infinity of
powers. The first is perfect goodness, unbegot-
ten, si^-yteVw* srorpiK-oV, the second is iyaOby
abrtytvh; the third ytwtnrrty, ttueoy. Inter-
mediate between Hyle and the father sits the
Son, the Word, the Serpent, ever turning, now to
the immovable father, now to the moving Hyle,
drawing powers from the first by means of which
Hyle, in itself destitute of properties or of form,
is fashioned according to the ideas received from
the father. These he draws in some ineffable
manner, just as the various colours passed into
the sheep from the rods which Jacob set up, or
rather as a painter transfers forms to bis canvas
without detracting aught from his model.
When, then, the Saviour says, "Your Father
which is in heaven," he means that heavenly
father, the first principle, from which the forms
have been derived ; but when he says " your
father was a murderer from the beginning," he
means the ruler and framer of Hyle, who, taking
the forms transmitted by the Son, works gene-
■ ration here, a work which is destruction and
• The technical use of the word ^yeftw Is found also
In the Naassene system, p. 10T. (See also the Valen-
tlnlan fragment, Epiph. mux. 31, p. 168.)
death. For the redemption of this world below,
Christ was made to descend in the days of Herod,
from the region of the unbegotten, a man him-
self threefold, having in himself powers from the
three parts of the world, " for in Him the whole
Pleroma was pleased to dwell bodily,'' and in
Him was the whole Godhead. His mission is m>
order that those elements which descended from
above may by him be enabled to return, while
those elements which plotted against the higher
ones shall be separated and left for punishment.
Thus, then, when it is said " the Son of Man
came not to destroy the world, but that the
world through Him might be saved," by " the
world " is meant the two superior parts, to>
byfyyijTov and to auroyiwrfrov ; but when the-
Scripture says "that we should not be con-
demned with the world," by the world is meant,
the third part or the mSffpor iSikiSj; for that
part must be destroyed, but the two superior
parts freed from destruction. When, then,
the Saviour comes into the world, just as the-
amber attracts the chaff, and the magnet the-
iron, and the spine of the sea hawk the gold, so
this serpent attracts to himself those whose-
nature is such as to be capable of receiving his-
influence. Snch persons are called Peratae.
because, by means of their "knowledge" they
have learned how safely to pass through
(irepSffoi) the corruption to which everything;
that is generated is subject. All the ignorant
are Egyptians. Egypt is the body, coming out
of Egypt is coming out of the body, and passing
the Red Sea, that is the water of destruction ; or,
in other words, generation. Those, however,
who suppose themselves to have passed the Red
Sea, are still liable to be assailed by the gods of
destruction, whom Moses called the serpents ot
the desert, who bite and destroy those who had
hoped to escape the power of the gods of gene-
ration. For these Moses exhibited the true and
perfect serpent, on whom they who believed were-
not bitten by the gods of destruction. X roll-
out this true serpent, the perfect of the perfect,
can save and deliver those who go out of Egypt, that
is to say from the body and from the world. In the
sketches here given we have by no means touched
on all the coincidences between what Hippoly tus
calls the Naassene and Peratic systems ; bnt we
consider that enough has been told not only to
shew that in both works the doctrines of the
same sect are described, but also that there is a
literary dependence of one work on the other.
If the two had not the same author it seems to-
us that the Peratic work is the elder, and that it
was made use of by the writer who uses the name
Naassene.
In close connection with these two sections
ought to be considered what Hippolytus tells
under the head Monoimcs. In the article with
that title we have given an account of his
system, and pointed out that be belongs to
the Naassene sect. The extracts of Hippolytus.
begin with a quotation from Homer —
wxe avb? ytnofs n Mr ytvttris t* avepwiror
used by the Naassene writer, pp. 105, 106. He
quotes the Naassene hymn, " Father, mother,
the two immortal names." He make* his
supreme first principle to be "Man "and the
" Son of Man." He quotes in exactly the tame
form the text that "it pleased the whole pit-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
OPHITES
OPHITES
87
to dwell bodily in the Son of Man." He
teaches the same ascetic doctrine, and describes
the men outside hie sect as ttrot wipl rb yiy
mtui rys (h)kttat del TtwXayriiiivou He finds
mysteries in Moses' rod (compare p. 183). He
employs the same vocabulary i$aat\eiras (pp.
107, 113), fuxx l M (compare pp. 269, 110), yaipi-
A/ijtarros col iivpi&rvfios (pp. 270, 117), (ivtiari
iyu«tr, pp. 270, 115, &o. On the whole the
evidence is conclusive that Monoimos was a
teacher of this Peratic sect ; and apparently his
work was used by the Naassene writer.
Coincidences, not less numerous and less strik-
ing;, are to be found between the Naassene
extracts and other writings preserved by
Hippolytus. Thus the "fiery god," of whose
origin the Naassene gives no explanation, is to
be found in the Docetic system (p. 265) ; and we
may also compare the Docetic explanation of the
parable of the sower (p. 263) with the Naassene
(p. 113). Again, although the system of Justin us
diners totally in character from the Naassene,
being mythical rather than philosophical, yet
there are some striking coincidences. For
instance, both find their Good Being in the
heathen use ef the phallic emblem crowned with
fruits (pp. 102, 157), and there Justinus gives
a derivation of the name Priapus quite in the
style of the Naassene etymology. Again, there
is much resemblance between the language in
which both speak of the "water above the
firmament (pp. 121, 158). The names Naas and
Esaldaeus are common to the two writers. Both
also endeavour to find their doctrines beneath
the veil of heathen mythologies. Under the
article Simon we shall mention some apparent
instance* of the use in later systems of the work
ascribed to that heretic.
When we attempt from such coincidences as
have been pointed out, to draw inferences as to
the relations between tne systems in which they
are found, there is an element of uncertainty
arising from the fact, that these coincidences
are between different documents known to us
only through Hippolytus, and that we hare no
evidence how these documents came into his
hands, whether from one source or from several.
Gnosticism was evidently in much less credit
in his time than it had been in the days of tre-
mens. The works which Irenaeus refutes were
in open circulation, but in the time of Hippo-
lytus the Gnostic sects were burrowing under-
ground, and it is his pride to drag to light
their secret documents, of which he was evi-
dently an ardent collector. Now collectors are
sometimes imposed on by dealers ; so that when
we find Hippolytus possessed of books purport-
ing to be by heretical teachers of whom we hear
from no one else, we cannot quite refuse to put
to ourselves the question, did such teachers ever
exist, or is it not possible that a heretic who
had got a good price from Hippolytus for one of
his books, may have been tempted to compose
others under different names, with no other
object than to sell them to his orthodox cus-
tomer. But since, notwithstanding many points
of agreement, the documents reported as by
Hippolytus differ so much among themselves as
to make common authorship unlikely, we think
their resemblances may be more probably ac-
counted for by the hypothesis, that several
reached Hippolytus from the same quarter. He
might, for instance, have got hold of the library
of the writer whom we nave called Naassene,
and so have become possessed of the very books
which had suggested his speculations.
Besides the two sections already considered,
the fifth book of Hippolytus contains sections on
two other Ophite systems, that of the Sethians
and of Justinus. The latter has been described
under its proper head (Vol. HI., p. 587). It will
be convenient to treat of the former here.
The Sethians [iiBtavol, Hippol. ; i-qBua/oi,
Epiph. ; Sethoitae, Ps.-Tcrt.]. The systems
described by Hippolytus under this name in his
earlier and in his later work appear to have
been quite different. Seth seems to have played
no part in the system of the latter book, which
appears to hare been called Sethite only because
contained in a book called the Paraphrase of
Seth. It is very closely related to a myth told
in the earlier treatise under the head of Nioolai-
tans, but the Sethite story of the earlier treatise
threw some of the commonplaces of Gnosticism
into the form of a myth, of which Seth was the
hero. This myth is to be found in Epiph. Haer.
39 ; Philaster, 3 ; Ps.-Tert 8, the coincidences
of language clearly shewing that all three
writers drew from the same source. Another
article of Epiphanius, on the Archontici (Haer.
40) evidently treats of the same school, books of
which seem to have become directly known to
Epiphanius. Two of these, a greater and a
lesser, were called Symphonia; a third was
called "AAAo7€i<«?s, by which latter name the
sons of Seth were denoted, some books being
written in their name, and some in that of their
father. The myth assumes the ordinary Gnostic
principle, that it was only by inferior angels that
the world was made. The myth went on to
tell that two of these angels, by intercourse with
Eve, became the fathers of Cain and Able re-
spectively. Then arose strife between the angels,
which resulted in the death of Abel by the hands
of Cain. Then the mother (no doubt the same
as the Sophia Prunikos of the other legends), in
order to destroy the power of these angels,
caused Seth to be born of Adam (and therefore
of a " different race " from his elder brothers)
and endowed him with a spark of power from
above, to enable him to resist the angelic powers
and to become the father of a pure seed. The
purity of the race, however, becoming corrupted
by intermarriages, the mother sent the deluge
to sweep away the corrupt brood, but the angels
defeated her design by introducing into the ark
Ham, one of the race which she had wished to
destroy. So the confusion of the world continued
and there was a necessity for further interference
by the descent of Christ, who according to some
of these books was identical with Seth. The .
angelic nomenclature of these books agi-ees (but
for trifling variations) with that of the Irenaean
Ophites. Thus it is Sabaoth, not Ialdabaoth,
who is identified with the God of the Jews.
The books told of Sethite prophets called Marti-
ades and Marsianus, who were said to have
ascended to heaven and apparently to have
brought down revelations.
The Sethite section of the later treatise of
Hippolytus is of quite a different nature, and
aims at being of a philosophic rather than a
mythical character, yet, as we have said, it is
the development of an older myth told by Epi-
Digitized by
Google
88
OPHITES
phanius {Uaer. 25, p. 80), of so repulsive a
character that we do not care to relate it at
length. As told by Hippolytus it strongly pre-
sents Zoroastrian features which are absent from
the other sections of his fifth book, the opposi-
tion between light and darkness being the main
theme. These so-called Sethites, then, tench
that there are three principles of the universe,
each of those principles containing under it an
infinity of powers. These principles are, above,
light ; below, darkness ; and separating between
them the spirit, which is to be understood not as
:i wind perceptible to sense, but as a certain
subtle fragrance. The light then pours its rays,
the spirit sheds its fragrance, some of which fall
upon the terrible waters of darkness, and these
eagerly lay hold of the light and strive to
detain it. From the concourse of these prin-
ciples is generated a great womb, namely the
seal or type of heaven and earth, which may be
seen to have the form of a pregnant womb. In
like manner, though the various powers included
under the three principles are at rest when by
themselves, yet when powers of different kinds
come near each other they rush together, and
from their concourse is formed a seal or type.
In this way, from the concourse of the infinite
variety of powers were formed the ideas of the
different kinds of living creatures. The agent
which gave these actual existence was a principle
first born of the water, a rushing mighty wind,
the cause of all generation, which is also de-
scribed as a flying serpent. Through its means
some of the light which fell on the darkness and
some of the sweet savour of the spirit are bound
in human bodies and cannot find release. Then,
since the foul womb will admit no form but
that of the serpent, the perfect word deceived it
by assuming the like form and entering into the
womb iu order to effect the release of the
imprisoned elements. This is what is meant by
the " form of a serpent," and by the " Word of
God descending into a virgin's womb." By
bringing the compounded elements within the
reach of this more powerful attraction the com-
pound is resolved. Like runs to like ; the Logos
elements in man run to the perfect Logos " as
chaff runs to amber, as iron runs to the magnet,
as gold to the bone of the sea hawk." This
resolution of compounds is what is referred to
in the saying, "I come not to send peace on
earth, but rather a sword."
The appearance for the third time of the
illustration * from the bone of the sea-hawk
arrests attention and forces us to enquire
whether, in spite of great apparent unlikeness,
this Sethite system may not have affinities with
the Naassene and Peratic systems previously
described. We find that these heretics have
no resemblance whatever to those elsewhere
designated Sethites, and that they seem to hare
been so called by Hippolytus merely because
their doctrines were taught in a book bearing
the name of Seth. The peculiar character of
the book is accounted for when we gain inde-
pendent knowledge that it is founded on a myth
of the Zoroastrian school to which it attempts,
with but poor success, to give a philosophic
" Possibly this Illustration was found In the work of
Simon, and was borrowed thence by later Gnostic
writers.
OPILIO
character. But all the fundamental ideas an
the same as in the previous sections of the 5th
book. We have again the threefold division of
the universe, the identification of the Logos
with the serpent, the representation of the
object of his mission as the leleasing of the
elements imprisoned in matter. There is the
same perverse system of Scripture exegesis ; and
some sacramental rite of the sect seems to be
referred to in what is insisted on in this, as in
the other systems, that every one who wishes to
put off the form of the serpent, and to put on
the heavenlv garment, must wash and drink
the cup of iiving water (p. 143 : compare p.
158, pp. 100, 116, 121).
Whatever opinion we form as to the author-
ship of this Sethite document, the affinity of the
sect with those previously described is unmis-
takable. There is, however, far less room to
doubt the affinity of the sect with those called
DOCETAB (p. 262, sqq.). In a previous article
we have noticed the singular discovery of a
proof of the triplicity of nature from the three
words ffKorot, yv6<t>os, BitWa (Deut. v. 22).
We may here add the technical use of the words
iWo, xapaKTifp, and the illustration drawn from
the eye (pp. 139, 266).
I have no doubt that if any one were to take
the trouble to make a concordance to this work
of Hippolytus, he would find many coincidences
between things told of different sects, which
escape one who has made no systematic search
for them. On the whole the conclusion at
which I arrive is, that we are to take the sec-
tions in Hippolytus as representing not neces-
sarily the teaching of different sects, but of
different books with which he became acquainted.
It is possible that these books may, as he sup-
posed, have emanated from different sects; for
the Gnostic sects had affinities between them-
selves, of which, with our present information,
we cannot pretend to give a historical account,
many fundamental thoughta and many myths
being common to sects which we must recognise si
distinct. It is also possible that books which
Hippolytus supposed to describe the doctrines
of different heresies really emanated from the
same sect, nay even may have had a common
authorship. So much of what we are told by
Hippolytus is peculiar to himself, and cannot be
checked by other sources of information that it
seems rash to be over-confident in choosing is
what way the coincidences that hare been
pointed out are to be accounted for.
Ophite teaching was, aa we believe, dying out
in the days of Hippolytus ; in the time of
Epiphanius it was not absolutely extinct, but the
notices in his work would lead us to think of it
as but the eccentric doctrine of some stray
heretic here and there, and not to have counted
many adherents. In the 5th century Theodorrt
tells (Haer, Fab. i. 24) of having found serpent
worship practised in his diocese by people whom
he calls Marcionites, but whom we may belieTe
to have been really Ophites. But the most
curious instance of the spread nnd survival of
the notions of this sect is that Ophite teachers
would seem to have penetrated to India (see
Asiatic Researches, x. p. 40). [G. S.]
OPILIO, deacon of the church of Venafrom,
and Crescentius were accused of selling certain
Digitized by
Google
OP1XIU8
0PP0BTUNU8
89
of the ornaments of the church to a Jew, viz.
two silver chalices, two coronae with the dolphins
that supported them, the lilies from other
coronae, and six large and seren small pallia.
Gregory, in August 591, directs the sub-deacon
Anthemius to inquire into the matter. (Epp. 1.
«8.) [F. D.]
OPILIUS, bishop of Ebusus (Ivica), attended
the council of bishops assembled by Hunneric at
Carthage in A.D. 484 (Notitia Africana, in
Migne, Patr. Lot. lriii. 276). Ebusus, with the
Balearic Islands, then belonged, both civilly and
ecclesiastically, to the Province of Sardinia.
[F. D.]
OPINATORES (Opinabii, Opinantes),
heretics so named from the Latin rendering of
the word Aomrrai (Baron. A. E. ann. 191, ii).
[Docetae.] [C. H.]
OPPA, bishop of Tuy, signs thirty-third the
canons of the 13th Council of Toledo, in A.D.
683. His episcopate must have been short, as
his predecessor signs the canons of the 12th, and
his successor those o£ the 15th, Council of
Toledo, in A.D. 681 and 688 (Tejado y Rxmiro,
Col. da Can. de la Igl. Esp. ii. 481, 512). Florez
(Esp. Say. xxii. 33) disproves the theory that he
was the same person as the traitor Oppas.
[K. D.]
OPPAS, archbishop of Seville, son of king
EaiCA, and brother of king Witiza, the last but
one of the Gothic kings of Spain. He became
archbishop shortly before hit brother's death.
That he and his brother Sisebut, and his nephews,
the sons of Witiza, headed a party hostile to
Rodebic, and that the defeat of the latter by
the Arabs, and the conquest of Spain, was mainly
doe to their treason or treachery seems certain,
but the details are wrapt in the obscurity in
which all the events connected with the over-
throw of the Goths are involved. According to
one version (Sebastian, Chron. in Etp. Sag. xiii.
478) they sent messengers to invite the invaders
from Africa, and furnished them with ships
Dozy (Recherches sur Vhittoirtde CEspigne, i. 74)
disbelieves this story, at unsupported by Arabian
sources, irom which he gives the following
a- count. The family of Witiza had been ap-
parently but not really reconciled to Roderic,
and avenged themselves upon him by deserting
him m the fatal battle. They supposed that the
expedition of Taric, like that of his predecessor
Tarif, was a mere descent for plunder, and that
on his departure they would be able to regain
the throne, and indeed Mousa, when he despatched
his lieutenant, had no designs of permanent
conquest. When they discovered their mistake,
they came to terms with the conquerors, and
Oppas in particular is accused of taking an
active part on their side on two occasions. He
arrested and executed certain lords at Toledo,
who were meditating flight (Isidorus Pacensis in
Migne, Patr. Lot. xcvi. 1263), and he accom-
panied the army that attacked Pelayo in his
mountain stronghold, and was taken prisoner in
their rout (Chron. Albeldense in Etp. Sag. xiii.
450). According to the Chronicle of Sebastian
(•Esp. Sag. xiii. 479) he was sent to summon Pe-
layo to surrender. (Gams, Kirckmgeschichte von
, H. (2), 242 } Etp. Sag. ix. 229). [F. D.]
OPPILA, nn ambassador from the Spanish
Arian king Leovigild to Chilperic, the catholio
king of the Franks. On his first arrival he
professed to hold the catholic faith, but his
Arinnism was discovered by an observation he
made upon the worship of the Frank church : —
" You do not recite the gloria correctly ; for
whereas we, after St. Paul, say 'Gloria Deo
Patri per filium,' yon say ' Gloria Patri et
Filio et Spiritui Sancto.'" There followed a
long debate, which is preserved in Gregory of
Tours, but with what effect on Oppila is not
known. His colleague Agila, however, after his
return to Spain, adopted the catholic view
(Greg. Turon. Hist. Fr. vi. 40 in Pat. Lot. Ixxi.
316). [R. J. £.]
OPPORTUNA, ST., abbess of Monasterio-
lnm or Montreuil 'in Normandy. To other
virtues she added extreme gentleness, correcting
the faults of her nuns with words instead of
blows. When her brother St. Godegrand bishop
of Seez returned from a seven years' pilgrimage
to Rome, and was murdered at the instigation
of his kinsman and locum-tenens, Chrodobert,
between Opportuna's monastery and that of her
aunt St. Lantildis at Almeneches, she cariied
him to Monasteriolum, and buried him in her
church. She survived him one year, dying
about A.D. 770. Her life, written in the follow-
ing century by St. Adalelmns or Adeliuus, bi-
shop of Secz, is given by Mabillon, Acta SS.
0. S. B. iii. pars. ii. 220, edit. 1672, and by
Henschenius, Boll. Acta SS. Apr. iii. p. 61. Her
day is April 22. She is not commemorated in
the old Martyrologies, nor in the modern Ro-
man, but is praised in the Acts of St. Godegrand
(Boll. Acta SS. Sept. i. 763 ; Gallia Christiana,
xi. 677). She is one of the patron saints of
Paris and of Almeneches and is represented with
an angel near her, in allusion to a tradition that
when she entered the monastery to take the
veil, the nuns saw her guardian angel walking
bv her side (Cahier, CaracUristiques det Saints,
43, 626, 660). [A. B. C. D.]
OPPORTUNU8 (IX abbat of the monastery
of St. Leontius (72), complained to Gregory
the Great that certain relics of the martyr had
been stolen from his church. Gregory there-
upon writes to Petrus, bishop of Hydruntum,
(Otranto) asking him to send something to be
substituted in their place, as the body of Leontius
was preserved in the church of Brundusiura,
over which Petrus had a visitatorial jurisdiction
{Epp. vi. 62). [F. D.]
OPPOBTUNUS (2), of Aprutium (Teramo)
had been rebuked by Gregory the Great, who,
hearing afterwards that he was overwhelmed
with grief in consequence, wrote to encourage
him, exhorting him to turn to God with his
whole heart, to be charitable to his neighbours,
to forgive injuries, and to think it gain if
he had been unjustly blamed. (Epp. x. 68.)
Gregory afterwards heard that he was leading
a religious life, and directs Passivus, bishop of
Firmum, to summon him and exhort him to
persevere ; and if he found he had done nothing
worthy of death, to advise him to become a
monk or subdeacon, and after a time, commit
to- his charge Aprutium, which had long been
without a pastor (xii. 12). [F. D.]
Digitized by
Google
90
OPTATIANUS
OPTATIANUS. [Poefimub.]
OPTATUS (1), a bishop stated to hare
appeared after death in a vision to St. Satnrus.
Morcelli (Afr. Chr. ii. 54) makes him biahop of
Carthage, A.D. 201-204. [Perpetoa.] Tille-
mont concludes that nothing can be decided
from the mention of Optatus as to the place of
martyrdom of St. Saturus and St. Perpetua.
(Tillemont, iii. 151, 644 ; Visio Saturi in Boll.
Acta S3. 7 Mart. i. 636.) [R. J. K.]
OPTATUS (2), African bishop (Cm Ep.
56). [Ahmnius.] [E. W. B.]
OPTATUS (8), Carthaginian confessor, after
being lector and master of catechumens (Doctor
Auilientiumi), to which office he was appointed
after examination by the bishop and presbyter-
teachers (doctoret, compare Aspasius in Act.
Perpet. et Felic. xiii.), he was made subdeacon at
the same time and for the same purpose as
Saturus was ordained for. (Cyp. Ep. 29 ; Ep.
35.) [E. W. B.]
OPTATUS (4), a bishop mentioned in. the
Acts of St. Justjna (4). He is said to hare
baptized that saint, and to have ordained her
father a presbyter (Boll. Acta S3. 26 Sep. vii.
218). The Bollandist Cleus, followed by Le
Quien, reckons him bishop of Antioch in Pisidia,
about A.D. 300. (Le Quien, Or. Christ, i. 1037.)
[G. T. S.]
OPTATUS (6) [Saraqossa, Mart, of.]
OPTATUS (6), saint and martyr (?), bishop
of Milevis, or Mileum (Milah), a town of Ku-
midia, 25 m. N.W. of Cirta (Shaw, Iran. p. 63),
a vigorous opponent of the Donatists. He says
ef himself that he wrote about sixty years, or
rather more, after the persecution under Dio-
cletian, i.e. c. A.D. 363. St. Jerome speaks of
him in general terms as having written during
the reigns of Valentinian and Valens, A.D. 365-
378. But in the second book of his treatise
Siricius is mentioned as bishop of Home, "qui
est noster socius." As Siricius did not succeed
Damasus until A.D. 384, these words may have
been inserted, as Baronius suggests, by the
transcriber of his book, or he may have outlived
the period mentioned by St. Jerome, and himself
inserted them at a later time. The date of his
death, however, is unknown. He is called a
saint by Fulgentius, and a martyr by Baronius,
on the authority of the Roman Martyrology,
which connects his name with June 4. But no
church or altar is known to be dedicated to his
memory, and no public persecution was raging
at any time when his death may be supposed to
have taken place. St. Augustine mentions his
name once in the same sentence as St. Ambrose,
and elsewhere as a church-writer of high autho-
rity, even among Donatists. (Opt. c.JJon. i. 13,
ii. 3; S. Hieron. Vir. Illustr. c 110, vol. ii.
p. 706 ; Aug. c. Doit. ep. (de Unit. Eccl.) 19,
50 ; c. Parm. i. 3, 5 ; Brevic. Coll. 20, 38 ; Doctr.
Christ, ii. 40, 61 ; Baronius, Ann. vol. iv. p. 243 ;
Morcelli, Afr. Chr. ii. 275; Dupin, Optatus
Prat/. 1.)
The treatise of Optatus against the Donatists
is in the form of a letter to Parmeoian, Dona-
tist bishop of Carthage, and consists of «ix
books, with a seventh of doubtful authenticity.
OPTATUS
L The first book opens with a eulogy of peace,
which he complains that the Donatists set
at nought by reviling the Catholics. He adds
some compliments to Parmenian, as the only one
of his party with whom he can communicate
freely, and regrets being compelled to do so by
letter, because they refuse to meet for conference.
Some statements by Parmenian, who is a " pere-
grinus," i.e. perhaps not a native of Africa, but
certainly belonging to a different province, were
made in ignorance, especially such as related to
the sending of the soldiers. Like the Catholics,
Donatists maintain unity of baptism, yet they
repeat it, and in so doing covertly commend
themselves as the only persons fit to administer
that rite. But if it be unlawful for " traditors"
to do this, they ought to be excluded, for their
own fathers were guilty of " tradition ;" and if
for schismatics, they themselves are guilty of
schism. Five points call for discussion, to which
Optatus adds a sixth. 1. In accusing Catholics
of " tradition," particulars ought to be specified
of time and place. 2. The true church ought
to be defined. 3. Which side is really respon-
sible for calling in the aid of the soldiers. 4.
What Parmenian means by "sinners" whose
" oil and sacrifice " God rejects. 5. The question
of baptism. 6. The riotous and rash acts of the
Donatists. But before proceeding farther
Optatus finds fault with Parmenian for his in-
considerate language about our Lord's baptism,
to the effect that His flesh required to be
"drowned in the flood" of Jordan, in order to
remove its impurity. If the baptism of Christ's
body were intended to suffice for the baptism
of each single person, there might be some
truth in this, bnt we are baptized, in virtue not
of the flesh of Christ, but of His name, and
moreover we cannot believe that even His flesh
contracted sin, for it was more pure than Jordan
itself. It is probable, however, as Ribbeck
remarks, that Optatus, in his anxiety to prevent
misapplication by others of the language of
Parmenian in this matter, has taken it in too
literal a sense, and imputed to it • meaning
beyond what it was intended to convey. Having
complained of Parmenian for dragging in here-
tical names irrelevantly, as if to magnify his
charges against the church, he agrees with him
in what he says about heretics, how the gifts of
the church, the sacraments, and marriage do not
truly belong to them, and he quotes Cant. iv.
12, vi. 9, in support of this view. They have
not the keys of St. Peter, nor the ring which is
the seal of admission, closing the " fountain," for
it was not Caecilianus who withdrew from the
chair of Peter and of Cyprian, but Majorinus,
whose seat is now filled by Parmenian. As a
schismatic, he ought to shrink from joining
heretics, for there is a great difference between
heresy and schism, yet by their conduct the
Donatists condemn themselves in this respect.
But it is necessary to recount the history of the
past, which he gives in detail, for which the
reader may be referred for the most part to the
articles on Donatism, Vol. I. p. 882 ; Caeci-
UANUS, ik. p. 367 ; Felix (26), Vol. II. p. 487 ;
LuoiLLA, Vol. III. p. 751. A few particulars,
however, may be added. 1. That Mcnsurius,
having been summoned by Maxentius to account
for his protection afforded to Felix (187), died on
his return to Carthage. 2. The schism at Car-
Digitized by
Google
OPTATUS
.thaga arose partly from the disappointment of
Botras and Celestlus, partly from the ill-will of
the Seniors against Caecilianus for detecting
their dishonesty, and partly from the conduct of
Lucilla. The purpose of Optatus is to shew that
it was not the church which cast off the
Donatists, but they who separated from the
church, following in this respect the example
of Korah and his company. When they dis-
claim the right of princes to interfere in the
affairs of the church they contradict their fore-
fathers, who, when the matter of Caecilianus
was in dispute, petitioned Constantine to grant
them judges from Gaul instead of from Africa.
II. In the second book Optatus proceeds to
discuss the question, what is the church, the
dove and bride of Christ, Cant. vi. 9. Its holi-
ness consists in the sacraments, and is not to be
measured by the pride of men. It is universal,
not limited, as Parmenian would have it, to a
corner of Africa, for if so where would be the
promises of Pss. ii. 8, lxxii. 8 ? And the merits
of the Saviour would be restricted, Pss. cxiii. 3,
xcvi. 7. The church has five gifts which Donatists
make si*. 1. The chair of Peter. 2. The angel
which is attached inseparably to the first. By this
Optatus appears to mean the power of confer-
ring spiritual gifts, which resides in the centre
of episcopal unity. Parmenian must be aware
that the episcopal chair was conferred from the
beginning on Peter, the chief of the apostles, so
that in virtue of this one chair unity might be
preserved among the rest, and no one apostle set
up a rival opponent. This chair, with whose
exclusive claim for respect the little Donatist
community can in no way compete [Macrobilb,
Montenses, Tol. III. 781, 947], carries with it
necessarily the " angel " (ducit ad se angelum),
unless the Donatists have this gift enclosed for
their own use in a narrow space, and excluding
the seven angels of St. John (Rev. i.), with
whom they have no communion; or if they
possess one of these, let them send him to other
churches: otherwise their case falls to the
ground. 3. The holy spirit of adoption, which
Donatist* claim exclusively for themselves,
applying to Catholics unjustly the words of our
Lord about proselytism, Matth. xxiii. 15. 4.
The fountain (probably faith) of which heretics
cannot partake, and 5. its seal, '• annulus "
(probably baptism), Cant. iv. 12. But a want
of clearness in the language of Optatus at this
point renders his meaning somewhat doubtful.
The Donatists add a sixth gift, the " umbilicus "
of Cant. vii. 2, which they regard as the altar ;
but this, being an essential part of the body,
cannot be a separate gift. These gifts belong to
the church in Africa, from which the Donatists
have cut themselves off, as also from the priest-
hood, which they seek by re-baptism to annul,
though they do not rebaptize their own returned
aecedera. But why do they lay so much stress
on gifts, for these belong to the bride, not the
bride to them. They regard them as the gene-
rating power of the church instead of the essen-
tials (viscera), viz. the Sacraments, which derive
their virtue from the Trinity. Parmenian truly
compares the church to a garden, but it is God
-who plants the trees therein, some of which
Donatists seek to exclude. In offering the
sacrifice to God in the Eucharist, they profess to
offer for the: ope church, but by their re-baptism
OPTATUS
91
they really make two churches. Thanking
Parmenian for his language about tho church,
which, however, he claims as applicable to the
Catholic church alone, he challenges him to
point out any act of persecution on its part.
Constantine took pains to restore peace and
suppress idolatry, but another emperor, who
declared himself an apostate, when he restored
idolatry allowed the Donatists to return, a per-
mission for the acceptance of which they ought to
blush. It was about this time that the outrage*
broke out in Africa [Felix (185), CJrbands], ot
which when Primosus complained, the Donatist
council at Theneste took no notice. Besides
others mentioned above [Vol. I. p. 883] they
compelled women under vows to disregard then,
and perform a period of penance, and deposed
from his office Donatus bishop of Tyscdis. Yet
they speak of holiness as if Christ gave it
without conditions, and take every opportunity
of casting reproach on church ordinances, ful-
filling the words of Ezek. xiii. 20.
III. In the third book, after going over again
some of the former ground, and as before laying
the blame of the schism on the Donatists,
Optatus applies to them, in a figurative way,
several passages of Scripture, especially Pss.
lxxxvii., cxlvii., Is. ii. 3, xxii. 1, 9. In these he
considers Zion, though destroyed as a city, to
denote the church spread over the Roman empire.
The " old pool " (Is. xxii. 9) answers to baptism,
which, together with the fish of Tobit vi. de-
noting Jesus Christ, they have endeavoured to
divert. Daniel foretold four persecutions, but
neither of these answers to the so-called perse-
cution under Macarius, and their proceedings
have made them liable to the denunciation of
Ezek. xiii. 10-15, for it was their wall of " itu-
tempered mortar" which Leontius and others
were obliged to destroy. If these men were to
blame, then Elijah and Phineas were so also. They
surely come under the denunciation of Is. v. 20,
and also the prophecies about Tyre, Is. xxiii.,
Ezek. xxviii.
IV. In the fourth book, disclaiming all un-
friendly feeling, and appealing to the common
possessions of both parties, Optatus charges the
Donatists with infraction of unity by appoint-
ment of bishops, and by proselytism, by forbid-
ding social intercourse, and perversely applying
to Catholics Scripture passages directed against
obstinate heretics, as 1 Cor. v. 11, 2 John 10.
As to the "oil and sacrifice" which they say
ought not to be administered by sinners, God is
the judge of this, as appears from Ps. 1. 16-20,
and the word " sinners " in Ps. cxli. 5 ought not
to be applied in the sense in which they apply it
against Catholics.
Y. In his fifth book Optatus returns to the
oft-repeated subject of re-baptism. Of his argu-
ment an abstract will be found in Vol. I. p. 886,
to which little need be added. The repetition of
baptism, he says, is an insult to the Trinity,
worse than the doctrines of Praxeas and the
Patripassians. In the confusion caused by the
opposite doctrines of Catholics and Donatists, an
umpire seems to be necessary, but what judge,
he asks, can be required beyond the plain words
of Scripture, John xiii. 8, Eph. iv. 5? Three
elements are requisite : (1) the Trinity, (2) the
minister, (3) the faithful receiver ; but of these
I the Donatists exalt the second above the other
Digitized by
Google
92
OPTATUS
two. They oae as a quotation words not found
in Scripture, " How can a man give what he has
not received 1" (see 1 Cor. ir. 7) ; bnt in baptism
<3od alone is the giver of grace. As it is not the
dyer who changes the colour of his wool, s>
neither does the minister of himself change the
operation of baptism. Of two candidates for
baptism, if one refused to renounce while the
other consented, there can be no doubt which of
them received baptism effectually. By re-
baptizing Donatists rob Christians of their mar-
riage garment, that robe which suits all ages and
conditions of life. He who has permitted him-
self to be rebaptized will rise no doubt at the
last day, but he will rise naked, and the voice of
the Master will be heard, " Friend, I once knew
thee, and gave thee a marriage-garment; who
has despoiled thee of it, into what trap, amongst
■what thieves hast thou fallen?" According to
Donatists, he who misses their ministers and
doorkeepers is cast out of the heavenly company ;
will their holiness raise the dead and mend men's
lives ? If not, why meddle with the living and
slay those that ought not to die ? (Ezek. xiii. 19.)
VI. In the sixth book he repeats some pre-
vious charges against Donatists, and adds others,
how they destroyed altars, the " seats of Christ's
Body and Blood," st which they themselves
must have offered. But during service the
tables are covered, and if so, not the wooden
tables but the cloths must have been in fault,
but if the tables, then the ground on which they
stood. They have broken up chalices and sold
them to women and even to pagans, yet they quote
Hagg. ii. 14 ; but even impurity of men does not
profane the vessels of service, see Numb. xvi.
87, 38. They compelled virgins to change their
caps, but St. Paul gave no command about virgins,
1 Cor. vii. 25, thus confessing that he had ex-
pended the " two pence " of Lnke x. 85, viz. the
two Testaments. By taking away these caps,
which in themselves are no remedy against sin,
they expose the women to danger. They have
also taken away sacred books and instruments,
and ventured to purify the latter of these ; but
if so why not the books also ? They have
washed the walls of churches with salt water,
and forbidden in them burial of Catholics.
Lastly, they seek to seduce Catholics from the
faith.
VII. The seventh book, which is not mentioned
by St. Jerome, but which may on good MS.
grounds be ascribed to Optatus, is supplemen-
tary to the six previous books, and answers a
fresh complaint made by the Donatists, that if
they are the children of " traditors," as Optatus
says, they ought to be let alone, and no attempt
made to " reconcile " them ; but, says Optatus,
though their fathers deserved to be excluded,
there is no reason why they should be so, for
the church repels no baptized persons. Christ
allows two sorts of seed to grow in His field, and
no bishop has power to do what the apostles
could not, viz. separate them. They might have
refused to communicate with Peter because he
denied his Lord, yet he retained the keys given
to him by Christ. They sometimes quote Eccl.
x. 1 regarding " ointment " as God's grace ; but
if the ointment belongs exclusively to them,
how can Catholics corrupt it if Donatists refuse
to mix with them ? They compare themselves
to Moses withstanding Jannes and Jambres, but
OPTATUS
are the chair and keys of Peter signs of false*
hood? The case ought really to be inverted.
Lastly their accusations against Macarius cannot
be sustained, but Donatists seek to condemn him
in his absence by the testimony of persons who
do not acknowledge that he acted wrongly.
The foregoing abstract, taken in connexion
with the article on Donatism (Vol. I. pp. 885,
886), may perhaps be taken as a sufficient
account of the work of Optatus, of which we
may say that it is more important in a historical
than in a doctrinal point of view. As a theo-
logical treatise it is often loose and rambling,
and guilty of frequent repetition; but it exposes
with clearness and force the inconsistency of the
Donatists, and of all who, like them, fix their
attention exclusively on the ethical side of reli-
gion, estimated by an arbitrary standard of
opinion, to the disregard of other conditions of
the greatest importance in the constitution of a
church. How perversely and inconsistently the
Donatists applied this principle in the matter of
re-baptism, Optatus again and again demon-
strates, returning in various parts of his treatise
to this point with much soreness of feeling.
That there was a doctrine of re- baptism in the
African church, to which Cyprian had lent the
weight of his authority, there can be no doubt,
but with him it was directed against heretics ;
on the principle that the followers of Marcion,
Praxeas, and the like, were in fact not truly
Christians, and thus their baptism was in itself
valueless. But Optatus is never weary of urging,
that though by their own act Donatists had
incurred the charge of schism, the church did
not regard them as heretics, and that they
ought not to treat as heretical their brethren
who disclaimed fastening on them that oppro-
brious name. In maintaining the unity of the
church, a principle upheld by Donatists no less
strongly than by Catholics, Optatus insists
greatly on communion with the church of Rome
and the chair of St. Peter, and he is accordingly
cited by Romanist writers with much confidence
as an important witness to the supremacy of the
papal chair. No doubt his words taken alone
appear strongly to support that view, bnt they
must be weighed in connexion with the words
and also the conduct of Cyprian and other
church authorities, and thus compared they will
be found to assert no more than the necessity,
so obvious in that day, of communion with the
Roman church, and its acknowledged primacy
among the other churches of the Christian com-
munity. In his application of Scripture pas-
sages, especially of a prophetical and symbolical
kind, Optatus may be thought too strained and
fanciful ; but his mode of application is in ac-
cordance with the current interpretations of the
time, and would probably agree in principle,
though not in application, with such as were
recognised by his opponents. His style, though
not always clear, and often harsh, is for the
most part homely and unpretending, and though
sometimes pompous and inflated, contains one
passage at least which rises to eloquence (v. 20).
The earliest printed edition of the works of
Optatus was prepared by John Cochlee, dean of
St. Mary, Frankfort, and published at Mentz,
1549, but was full of errors. A corrected
edition of this was published at Paris in 1562
by Baudouin, and a further one by the same
Digitized by
Google
OPTATUS
editor, with correction*, notes, dissertations,
and important historical additions, in 1569.
This was followed in the Bibliotheca Maxima
Patrvm, vol. 4. Other editions followed at
various times, including one by Gabriel do
l'Aubespine bishop of Orleans, published in 1631,
after his death, and probably from that cause
containing many mistakes, and one by Meric
Casaubon, London, 1631, which as regards the
text is mainly a reprint with conjectural emenda-
tions, but containing some useful notes. At
length the work of a new edition, on the basis
of fresh HSS., was undertaken by Dupin, who
published the seven books as they now stand
at Paris in 1700. This was reprinted at Am-
sterdam in 1701, and at Antwerp, best ed.,
thin folio, in 1702, and is the groundwork of
all subsequent editions. One of his new MSS.
contains documents relating to the Donatists,
which were unknown before, and to his revised
text he added valuable notes, both of his own
and by previous editors. A reprint of Dupin will
be found in Galland, Bibliotheca Pair. vol. v.
The text alone was published by Oberthilr in
vol. 12 of his Bibliotheca, Wiirzb. 1789, with a
second volume (13) of various readings and
useful notes, selected and original. The form,
8vo, is convenient, and the additional documents
are numbered, but the misprints are very nume-
rous and perplexing. The text, without notes,
appears in Caillau's Collection, vol. 57. The
edition of Dupin has lately been reprinted in
the 11th volume of Migne's Patrologia, and his
pagination is preserved ; but the map being
smaller in size is less clear than in Dupin's folio,
and all the documents previous to A.D. 362 are
purposely omitted and must be sought for in
vol. viii. of the Patrologia. Thus the edition of
Dupin, though perhaps in some respects less
convenient in size, is altogether the best and
most comprehensive. An account of Optatus
and his writings will be found in Ceillier, vol. v.
[H. W. P.]
OPTATUS (7% Donatist bishop of Thamu-
gada,iu which see he preceded Gaudentius, though
in what year he became bishop does not appear.
(Aug. c. Oavd.i. 38, 52.) He was a violent
partisan of the original Donatist party, and as
such supported Primian against the Maximian-
ists. He attached himself to Gildo so closely,
and as his opponents said, in so servile a manner,
as to obtain the name of Gildonianus, and in
their opinion deserved every possible epithet of
reproach, thief, plunderer, traitor, tyrant, viper,
which the excesses of Gildo, during his ten years'
ascendancy in Africa, drew down upon him from
every one, whether Jew, Pagan or Christian.
Perhaps in the violence of the general invective
there is some exaggeration, especially in the
charge brought against him that he regarded
Gildo as a deity, but he certainly appears to
have made unscrupulous use of the military
force under Gildo's command to carry out a
system of persecution both against Catholics
and Maximianists, destroying a church belong-
ing to the latter, and even marching, it was
said, over the corpses of the slain to accomplish
his purposes ; and by his conduct bringing more
ditcredit on the Donatist party than any African
traitor had brought on the rest of the world.
Bis persecution was so far successful as to compel
OPTATUS
93
the people of Musti and Assume with their bishops
Kelicianus and Rogatus, who had succeeded to
Praetextatus, to return to the original party of
the Donatists, by whom his conduct is said to
have been cordially approved, and his birthday, i.e.
probably the anniversary of his episcopate, cele-
brated with honour. [Feucianus (4).] After
the downfall of Gildo he was apprehended, and
died in prison, a conclusion which Augustine
was falsely charged by Petilian of contributing
to bring about. His memory was held in respect
by the Donatists, by whom he was regarded as a
martyr. Emeritus was taunted by Augustine,
if not with sympathy, at least with faint con-
demnation of his behaviour, and Cresconius and
Petilian taxed with declaring themselves unable
to express a derided opinion concerning him,
cither of acquittal or condemnation. In arguing
with Petilian on the subject of Baptism, Augus-
tine mentions the argument current among
Donatists that Catholic Baptism was invalid,
because of the bad character of those who ad-
ministered it, and in reply he asks how they can
regard as valid baptism by such a man as
Optatus. While they argued that re-baptism
was justified by the fact that St. Paul re-bap-
tized persons baptized by St. John the Baptist,
they forget that St. Paul s baptism was not in
his own name, but in that of Christ, and that
the efficacy of baptism does not after all depend 1
on the personal character of the minister. (Aug.
Parm. ii. 1, 2; e. Petit, i. 10, 11; 13, 14;
18, 20; ii. 23, 53, 54; 37, 85, 88, 103, 237;
iii. 40, 48 ; c. Crete, iii. 13, 16 ; iv. 25, 32 ; 46,
55; c. Gaud. i. 38, 52. JSp. Ii. 3; liii. 3, 6;
lxxvi. 3 ; lxxxvii. 4, 5, 8 ; cviii. 2, 5.)
[H. W. P.]
OPTATUS (8), prefect of Constantinople
in the latter part of a.d. 404, subsequently to
the banishment of Chrysostom and the confla-
gration of the cathedral. Optatus, who was a
bigoted pagan, had held the praefectship of
Egypt, c. a.d. 384 (Corf. Theod. ed. Gothofred,
torn. vi. pp. 310, 311), and that of Constantinople
in A.D. 398 (ibid. torn. iv. p. 493 ; xii. tit. i. lex
160 de Decor.}. He was appointed praefect a
second time in the place of Studius, who had
shewn himself too lenient in bis treatment of
the adherents of Chrysostom. No such charge
could be brought against Optatus. He felt the
implacable animosity of a thorough pagan against
the n;w faith, and evidently rejoiced in the
opportunity offered him of treating its adherents
with contumely and cruelty. He endeavoured
to extort confessions of complicity in the con-
flagration by the most horrible tortures, under
which some of his victims expired. [Eotropius ;
Serapion ; Tiqkids.] The noble ladies who were
known to be friends and supporters of Chrysostom
were dragged before him, and counselled to
communicate with Arsacius or to brave the
consequences. Some few complied. The majority
stood firm, among whom the deaconesses Pen-
tadia and Olympias held a distinguished place
for the courage of their confession. It proving
impossible to substantiate the charge of setting
the cathedral on fire, and equally hopeless to
bend her to his will, Olympias was dismissed.
Towards the middle*of the following year, A.D.
405, Olympias was summoned before Optatus
a second time, and was fined 200 lb. of gold
Digitized by
Google
94
OPTATUS
(Socr. //. E. vi. 18 j Soz. II. E. viii. 24 » Pallad.
Dial. p. 28). The fourth law de usuris was ad-
dressed to him, A.D. 405. (Cod. Theod. torn. i.
p. 237 ; ii. tit. 33.) [E. V.]
OPTATUS (9), a bishop, perhaps of Milevis,
who joined with St. Augustine and other Catholic
bishops in exculpating Marcellinns from the
charge brought against him by the Donatists of
corrupt partiality at the Carthaginian confer-
ence, a.d. 411 ; Aug. Ep. cxli. 169, 13 ; clxxxv.
6. MARCBLLUTOS (7). He also wrote to Augus-
tine a letter, of which Renatus was the bearer,
requesting his opinion on the metaphysical ques-
tion of the propagation of the human sou), a
subject concerning which there was much dis-
cussion in the church at that time, and on which
previously to the conference Marcellinus had
written to Augustine and also to St. Jerome to
ask their opinion, to whom, together with his
wife Anapsychia, St. Jerome replied, excusing
himself from discussing the question at length
on the ground of want of time, but mentioning
what he believed to be the opinion generally
held by the Western church, viz. that the soul
is transmitted by descent, though he himself
was disposed to think that each soul is created
separately, and recommending his correspondents
to consult Augustine as being within their reach
in Africa. (Aug. Ep. cxliii. 165.) In reference
to this appeal Augustine wrote to St. Jerome
declining to give any positive opinion of his own
on the question, and requesting one from him,
approving his condemnation of Origen's notion
that, as a punishment for sins committed in
other states of being, souls transmigrate into
other bodies (Hieron. adv. Raff. iii. 30), men-
tioning that in his own book on Free Will he
had stated the opinions on the subject which
were current at that time, and stating tome
important objections to them of the same kind
aa those which he states in his subsequent letter
to Optatus. (Ep. clxvi. A.D. 415.) In his reply
to Optatus, Augustine persists in declining to
give a positive opinion, but discusses the question
cautiously yet with all respect and deference
for his friend. The question put by him was
whether the soul is derived from a single original
creation, as in the case with natural descent, or
proceeds in each case from a separate act of the
Creator. In his book on Free Will Augustine
had mentioned two other notions, viz. that souls
which existed in a previous state of being, are
-either transferred into other bodies by a divine
impulse, or pass into them of themselves (de Lib.
Arb. iii. 21). Dismissing in the course of his
letter as untenable, some arguments of a merely
verbal kind founded on such passages as Gen. ii.
23 ; xlvi. 26 ; Ps. xxxiii. (xxxii.) 15 ; Eccl. xii. 7 ;
Zech. xii. 1, pointing out the error contained in
Tertulllan't opinion that the original of the soul
was not a spiritual but a bodily substance
<Tertull. adv. Prax. 7 ; de An. 1 ; Aug. Gen. ad
lit. x. 25), and shewing that as in the case of
Esau and Jacob, the soul's existence in men's
corruptible body is no part of a punishment for
sin committed in another state of being (Rom.
ix. 11, 13), he points out the necessity of re-
conciling any opinion on the subject with the
two cardinal doctrines (1) of original sin incurred
in the person of Adam, and (2) redemption
through Christ alone, with neither of which can
OPTATUS
any speculative opinion as to the origin of the
soul be allowed to interfere. Even if no answer
can be given to the question, the fact of redemp-
tion must stand firm. The law came in to take
away any notion of men's self-sufficiency, and
both they who under the law believed in a
Redeemer to come, and also all righteous men at
any time, either before or after the Incarnation,
are raised through faith in Him. (Acts xv. 10,
11 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13.) As he pointed ont in his
letter to St. Jerome, the case appears most
strongly in that of infants. Having no actual
sin of their own ; if they be a new creation, and
in virtue of this newness they be exempt from
the guilt of original sin, how can it be true, as
the church believes, that this sin of theirs is
remitted through the sacrament of the One
Mediator, while those who die without it do not
obtain the benefit which it confers ? If these
new souls are liable to condemnation, they must
have derived their origin not from God but from
some other author. God's anger is not a sudden
passion but a serious determination, in which He
uses the condemnation of the wicked as a warn-
ing to the good. Infants dying regenerate and
taken to bliss, cannot be said to obtain this by
any exercise of free will, any more than those
who die without this grace in the lump (massa)
of condemnation, in which, except for God's
mercy, all would be included. His mercy may
thus be said to assist the children and prevent
the grown people. The transmission of the
soul is not less intelligible than the communica-
tion of light from one object to another withont
diminution of itself, he cannot believe that re-
generation of infants is fictitious, or that God
is the author of the stain in them. While he
is unable to form a definite judgment on the
matter from canonical scripture, he warns his
friend against falling into a new error like that
of Pelagius, on which he will send him the
judgment of the apostolic see, if he has not
already seen it (Zosimus). This heresy consists
in denying, not that souls proceed from a sinful
origin, but that children derive from Adam any
taint which must be removed in baptism. If,
said Pelagius, the soul is not propagated, hut
only the body, then the body alone ought to be
punished. That the soul of the Mediator
derived no taint from Adam cannot be doubted,
not because he was unable to obtain for himself
a soul without sin, not to create a new one for
that body which being free from sin He himself
took from his Virgin Mother. (Aug. Ep. 190.)
[H. W. P.]
OPTATUS (10), a presbyter, bearer of a
letter from St. Augustine to Celer, proconsul of
Africa. [Celeb (1).] (Aug. Ep. 56.)
[H. W. P.]
OPTATUS (11), bishop of Sitifa, a.d. 525,
mentioned in the address of bishop Boniface to
the council of Carthage ; obliged to absent
himself from the meeting of the council on a
special commission for kingHilderic. (Hardouin,
ii. 1075 j Morcelli, Afr. Chr. i. 284.) [R. J. K.]
OPTATUS (1$) ST., bishop of Anxerre In
the 6th century. Commemorated on Feb. 18
(Gall. Chr. xii. 266). [C .&]
OPTATUS (13), defensor, was charged by
Gregory the Great, in A.D. 603, to inquire if
Digitized by
Google
OPTATUS
ORE8IESIS
95
certain clerics at Nursia bad women in their
boosts who were not related to them. If this
im true, he was to admonish them to desist,
and if they were contumacious to call in the
aid of CBKY8ANTHD8, bishop of Spoleto. (Epp.
liii. 85.) He is probably not the same person
as the defensor of the same name mentioned in
another letter (Epp. xiu. 11). [F. D.]
OPTATUS (14), abbat of Monte Casino.
St Boniface archbishop of Mains writes to him
and his community, exhorting to brotherly lore,
and recommending the establishment of a con*
fraternity with his own monks, Aj). 752. He
ruled the monastery from about 752 to Jan. 4,
760. (Jaffe, Monum. Mogtmt. 356 ; Bonif. Ep.
83 in Pat. Lot. lxxxix. ; Ceillier, xii. 52 ; Vid.
Leo, Canon. Mon. Cat. in Pert*, Mm. Hist. rii.
585, 586.) [R. J. K.]
OPTIMUS (1), bishop of Antioch in Pisidia,
to which he was translated from Agdamia (Soc
vii. 36), which Le Quien (i. 817) calls Acmouia
in Phry gia Pacatiaua. He was one of the most
distinguished orthodox prelates of his time,
baring undauntedly defended the Catholic faith
under Yalens, and had refuted heretics (Theod.
H. E. iv. 20). He attended the council of Con-
stantinople in 381 (Theod. H. E. v. 8 ; Labbe,
ii. 957), and was appointed one of the centres of
Catholic communion for the Eastern church (de-
signated "patriarch" by Socrates, H. E. v. 8),
by the council and the emperor Theodosius,
representing in that capacity the diocese of Asia,
together with Amphilochius of Iconium (Cod.
Theod. dt fid. Cath. xvi. tit. i. lex 3, torn. vi. p. 9).
While at Constantinople he signed the will of
Gregory Nazianzen as a witness. He also shared
is the bounty of Olympias for the poor of her
diocese, and, dying in the imperial city, his eyes
were closed by the same holy woman (Pallad.
p. 116). Wt hare a very long letter cf Basil's
addressed to Optimus in a.d. 377, expounding
at bis request the passages relating to Cain
(Gen. ir. 15), Lantech (ib. 23-25), and the words
of Simeon (Lu. ii. 34, 35) (Basil, Ep. 260 [317]).
Optimus is mentioned in the petition of the
deacon Basil and other monks, in the acts of
the council of Ephesus, among the holy fathers
whose doctrine they desired to follow. (Labbe,
iu. 426.) [E. V.]
OPTIMUS (8), proconsul of Asia in the time
of the Decian persecution, under whom several
martyrs suffered at Lampsacus. (Boll. Acta SS.
15 Mai. Hi. 453 e; Tillem. Hi. 345, 346, 392-
394; Kuinart, AA. Sine. pp. 144, 147.)
fG.T.S.]
OB. [See Hoe.]
ORACH, abbat of Liamore and of Inch Var-
Shelmaliere, co. Wexford, died A.D. 781. (Ann.
OU. A.n. 780.) [J. g.]
ORATORIA, the name of an abbess ad-
dressed in one of the letter* of Caesarius bishop
of Aries, according to the reading of Holstenius,
"Epistola ad Oratoriaro Abbatissam" (Codex
Begat, iu. 40); but Migne (Pat. Lot. t. Ixrii.
1135) heads the letter, "Epistola Hortatoria
ad Virginem." (Ceill. xi. 152 ; Boll. Acta SS.
27th Auk- vi. 63.) [J, 6.J
ORDBRIHT (1), the name assigned to the
first of the fictitious abbats of Westminster.
He is stated, in Sporley's MS. history of the
abbey, to hare ruled for twelve years, and to
have died on the 13th of January, 616 (Mon.
Angl. i. 266). The early history of Westminster
is very obscure, and the fictitious portions of it
are hardly entitled to the name of legends, as
they emerge so late from utter darkness. There
is no mention of the abbey or of any church on
the site, in any contemporary authority before
the time of Hardicanute, whom the chronicle
states to have been buried there (M. II. B. p.
432). Yet within five and twenty years the
abbey has risen into the first rank of monastic
foundations, and a few years later possesses a
history running back to the first ages of the
English Church. Under the auspices of abbat
Vitalis, who ruled from 1076 to 1082, a monk
called Sulcard wrote an elaborate account of the
ancient and miraculous foundation ; and later
writers, Sporley in particular, who lived in the
15th century, threw the history back to the age
of King Lucius. According to Sulcard, the
founder was a Londoner of the age of Ethelbert,
whom Ailred of Rievaulx and Gervase of Can-
terbury identify with the East Saxon king
Sebert. Mellitus, when bishop of London, pro-
cured the foundation in 604, and the consecration
was miraculously performed by St. Peter him-
self. A bare list of names carries the story on
to the days of Ofia, in whose name some charters
were forged either in the time of Edgar or more
probably on the eve of the Norman Conquest.
The languishing foundation was revived under
Edgar, under whose name a further collection of
charters is produced, in one of which the earlier
fabulous history is recorded. In that reign an
abbat named Wulfsin is placed at Westminster
by William of Malmesbury, who seems to have
known of the fabulous history, and whose evi-
dence is therefore of little value. The real his-
tory of the house begins with the reign of the
Confessor, and the whole of the fabulous history
probably originated within a few years after his
death. (See Mon. Angl. i. 265 sq. ; W. Mahnesb.
0. P. § 73 ; Kemble, Cod. Dipt. Ho*. 149, 569,
779, 824-829; 842-846, lee. &c.) [S.]
ORDBRIHT (2), a second abbat of West-
minster, who is made by the fabulous history to
preside from 785 to 797, and to have been bishop
in Devon. There was no Anglo-Saxon bishopric
in Devon for at least a century after that date.
(Mm. Angl. i. 268, 267 ; Kemble, C. D. No. 149.)
[SO
ORENTIUS, Pelagian bishop at council of
Ephesus (Labbe, Hi. 666). [Oeontius (3).]
[T. W. D.]
ORENTIUS or ORIBNTTUS, called by
Cave (i. 503) and Ceillier bishop of Elvira, is more
properly Okonthjs (5).] [C. H.]
ORENTIUS, bp. Merida. [Orosttos (7).]
ORENTIUS, of Tarragona. [OBBSrus.]
ORESIESIS (al. Omsk), a friend and coad-
jutor of Pachomius. He wrote a treatise, now
lost, on the monastic life. (Oennad. De Vtrit
Itlustr. s. v. ; Cave, H. L. «. v.) [L G« 3-]
Digitized by
Google
96
ORESIUS
ORESIUS, a Spaniard of Tarragona, addressed
by Sidoniaa (lib. ix. Ep. 12 in Pat. Lot. lviii.
629), the date of the letter being in or about
484 (Baron. Ann. 484 exxxvi. and Pagi). Ba-
ronios names him Orentius, and thinks he may
have subsequently become the bishop of Elvira,
if it be not Lerida, called Orontius, who attended
the council of Tarragona in 516 (Hardouin, ii.
1044). [Orontius (6).] [C.H.]
ORESTES (1), keymaker, addressed by Nilus
(lib. ii. ep. 217> [C. H.]
OBESTES (2), prefect of Alexandria
[CrEiLLUS (2), Htpatia], incensed against
Cyril, chiefly because the archbishop wished to
spy into his official acts. For an account of
their quarrel, and the riot and bloodshed, vide
Sac. vii. 13, 14. His name is also associated with
Hypatia, who was regarded as the obstacle to a
reconciliation between Cyril and Orestes through
her frequent communications with the latter.
(Soc. rii. 15.) [R. J. K.]
ORESTES (8), 2nd or 3rd bishop of Bazas,
was, according to Gregory of Tours, one of the
three bishops who consecrated Faustianus, the
nominee of the pretender Gundovald, to the see
of Dax. Though Orestes denied complicity he
shared the penalty imposed on the other two
[Faustcanus]. He was present at the second
council of Macon held in 585, where the matter
was considered. (Greg. Tnr. Hist. Franc, vii. 31,
Tin. 2, 20; Gall. Christ, i. 1192; Mansi, ix.
957.) [S. A. B.]
OREUS, see Hebdomas, Vol. II. p. 580.
OREUS or ORENTIUS, of Auch.
[Obientius.]
OROARUS, abbat of Westminster (744-56)
in the spurious list of the monk Sporley
(ifonatt. Angl. i. 267> [C. H.]
ORIBASIU8, addressed by Nilus (lib. ■▼■
ep. 15); another, addressed by Isidore of Pelu-
sium (lib. i. ep. 437). [C. H.]
ORIENTIUS, bishop of Auch (Ausci, Au-
gusta Ausciorum, or Auiium), in the early part
of the 5th century. Of this bishop it is related
that he resolved to abandon the pleasures of the
world, and the vices to which he had been some-
what prone, for the devout life; and that he
was led, by supernatural guidance, to choose, as
the place of his retirement, Bigorra in Vasconia
(Bigorre, about 15 miles U.K. of Pan). Here
he is said to have lived in austere sanctity until
he was chosen bishop of Anch, on the death of
Ursianua or Ursinianus. As bishop, he distin-
guished himself by resisting and overcoming the
Arian heresy, which prevailed extensively among
the people of his diocese, more especially among
the Goths. The date of his episcopate, which
is said to have lasted 41 years, is to a certain
extent fixed by the statement that he was sent
by the king of the Goths (Theodoric) from Tou-
louse to Aetius and Litorius. This event, late in
his life, must have been in the year 439 or 440.
The date of 396, given as that of his death by
Gams (Series Episc. p. 497), has for its founda-
tion a document of the year 1108, quoted in
Gallia Christiana, i. 974. The Gall. Christ, itself,
OBIGENES
by a miscalculation, gives the date of his episco-
pate as 323-364. His successor Armentarius
was apparently bishop in 451, a date which would
agree with the story of Orientius's mission. There
are also recorded concerning him several marvels ;
notably, the purification of a certain mountain,
formerly much infested by evil spirits ("im-
mundis spiritibus valde refertum "). His modern
title is St. Orens. To him were dedicated a
Cluniac monastery at Auch, where his body was
laid, and a chapel at Toulouse, of which city he
is reckoned the patron saint. To this saint is
ascribed the Commonitorium S. Orients, a short
poem on the chief points of Catholic doctrine
and practice. The poem has indeed been ascribed
to Orosius of Tarraco, and to Orontius (perhaps
identical with Orosius), who was present at the
council of Tarraco, a.d. 516. It appears, how-
ever, from internal evidence, to be of the 5th.
century, and the work of one who not only bore
the same name as the bishop of Auch, but had
had similar experiences, political and religious.
Certain minor works, comprising a poem on the
Holy Trinity, an enumeration and explanation of
the names of Christ, and fragments of a collec-
tion of prayers in verse, are probably of a later
date. The Commonitorium 3. Orients was first
published by Martene (in the Coll. Nov. Vet. item.
1700), and is also to be found in the Benedictine
Thesaurus Anecdotorum (v. 18). (Martene, in
the Thesaurus ; Ebert, Qesch. der Chr.-Lat. Lit.
392; Cave, Hist. Litt. i. 503; Boll. Acta SS.
1 Mai. i. 61.) [H. A. W.]
ORIGENES (X).
I. Socacxa.
II. Lira.
III. Cheokoloot oi Works.
IV. List and Axaltsis or Woxxs.
A. Extoctioal WarroroB.
1. Writings on 0* CM Testament.
2. Writings on the Ifew Testament.
B. Dogmatic Warrnras.
1. On First Principles.
2. JKsctllanies.
C. Apologetic Warmtos.
Books against Oelsus.
D. Practical Warrnras.
On Prayer.
Exhortation to Martyrdom.
E. Critical Warruraa. [See HkxapiaJ
F. Litters.
Q. Phtlocaua.
Pseudonymous Writings.
V. View or Christian Life.
TI. Oeiokx as a Critic and Interpreter.
VII. Origen as a Theolooiak.
VIII. Characteristics.
IX. Editions or Origin's Works.
I. Sources. — The main authority for the de-
tails of Origen's life is Eubebius (Hist. Ecc. vi.).
Eusebius had made a collection of upwards
of a hundred letters of Origen (H. E. vi. 36).
These, together with official documents (H. E.
vi. 23, 33), and the information which he derived
from those who had been acquainted with
Origen (H. E. vi. 2, 33), formed the basis of his
narrative. His account of the most critical
period of Origen's life, his retirement from Alex-
• andria, was given in the second book of his Apo-
logy, which he composed with the help of Pain-
philus (H. E. vi. 23). This unhappily has not
been preserved.
Digitized by
Google
ORIGENES
The controversial writings of JEROME and
Rcfiscs have preserved some facts from the
Apology of Ensebins and Pamphilus ; the first
book of which remains in the translation of
Rufinus. Bat Jerome had no independent know-
ledge of the details of Origen's life. His short
notice in Dt Yiria iliustnbus, c. 54, depends
mainly on Ensebius ; but it contains a few de-
tails which may have been derived from the
Apology mentioned above.
Epiphanhjs (Haer. Ixiv.) has preserved some
anecdotes of different degrees of credibility.
A few details, taken from the Apology of
Pamphilus and Ensebins, are dne to Photius
{Cod. 118).
The writings of Orioen himself give but few
details as to the circumstances of his life. But
the loss of his letters is irreparable. They would
bare given at least a fuller picture of the man,
even if they gave little additional information
on the outward circumstances of his life. Only
once, so far as I have noted, does he refer to the
associations of Caesarea with the early history
of the church (Horn, in Num. xi. 3). In another
place he speaks of having witnessed the con-
stancy of martyrs {Horn, in Jud. ix. 1). On the
other hand, the Farewell Address (xpoo-ipurnTiKc-s
It -rmrnyvputoi Xiyos) of Gregory of Neo-
Caesarea is a contemporary record of his
method and influence of unique importance and
interest.
Some books of modern times may be mentioned
at once. An account of Origen's opinions, so far
as they seemed open to objection, was given by
Sextns Senensis in his Bibliotheca, Librr. vi. vii.
<1566) in the spirit of a generous apologist.
Genebrard arranged these points nnder general
heads, in the introduction to his edition of
Origen's Works (1574), and advocated Origen's
cause with too great partiality in the judgment
of Huet. P. Halloix went further in his ela-
borate account and defence of Origen (Origenes
defaults . . . Leodii, 1648) dedicated to Innocent X.
(G. B. Pamfili : " Solent similia a similibus, si
qoidem XlafupiKlois, in re non dissimili mfi<pi\las
expectari "). The book was attacked and placed
upon the Index, ' donee corrigatur,' but it had a
powerful effect. The great work of Huet (Ori-
geniand), prefixed to his edition of Origen's
Commentaries (1668), was more complete and
just. Nothing which has been written since
shews greater or even equal mastery of the
frets, though Huet's treatment is scholastic and
necessarily deficient in historical feeling. Mean-
vhile tbe controversy on Origen's doctrine of
the pTe-existence of souls had spread to England.
"A Letter of Resolution concerning Origen and the
Chief of his Opinions " (London, 1661), published
anonymously by 6. Rust, fellow of Christ's
College, Cambridge, and afterwards bishop of
Dromore, seems to have attracted considerable
attention. Fabricius speaks of it with respect ;
and it is in every way a remarkable piece of
theological criticism. Two letters by S. Parker,
afterwards bishop of Oxford, on the " Platonick
Philosophy," and the " Origenian hypothesis of
the pre-existence of souls " (Oxford, 1667), may
be referred to as representing the other side.
J. H. Horbius concludes his Bistoria Origeniana
(Francofurti, 1670) with the words of Justinian,
and holds that Origen may " fairly be called the
fountain of all heresies " (p. 91). Other works
CHRIST. BIOOB. — VOL. XV.
ORIGENES
97
are mentioned by Fabricius (Bibl. Or. vii. 241 ff.)
It must be sufficient to refer generally to the
accounts of Origen's life and opinions given by —
Tillemont (Uemoiret, ill. Paris, 1695, ed. 2, 1701).
Lardner (Credibility, p. ii. vol. ill. London, 1750;
vol. 11. ed. Kippts).
Cellller (Auteurs Sacrii, U. Paris, 1730).
Marechal (Concordantia Patrum, Paris, 1739).
Lumper (But. Patrum Theok Critica, lx. August,
Vindob. 1792).
Welch (Gesch. d. KeU. vll. vffl. Leipzig, 1762, ff.).
Du Pin, Xouvelle BSbliothique des Auteurt BeeUs.
torn. I. Puis, 1690.
The histories of Mosheim (De reb. Christ, ante
const. Comm., Helmst. 1753) and Schroeckh
(Kirchen-Oesch., Leipzig, 1772-1803) contain
useful materials. The analyses of Schramm
(Anal. Patrum, Ang. Vind. 1780-96) are good :
his literary notices are taken from Delarue.
More recently Origen's life and doctrine has
been discussed, with special reference to his
historical position in the development of
Christian thought, by—
Guericke, De Sckda Alas. Catech., Halis Sax., 1825.
Neander, Kirch. Gttchwhte.
Tbomaslus, Origenes, NOrnberg, 1837.
Redepenning, Origenes, Bonn, 1841-8.
Moehler, Patrologie, Rrgemburg, 1840.
Huber, Philos. d. JCirchenvater, Munchen, 1869.
Schsff, Church History, New York, 1867.
De Pressense, Hutoire des trois premiers sieclcs,
Paris, 1858-77.
Boehringer, Kirchengach. in Biogr. Element u. Ori-
genes, Zurich, 1869, 2" Aufl.
To these may be added —
Joly, Etude sur Origins, Dijon, 1860.
FreppeL Orighne, Paris, 1868.
Denis, M. J., La Philosophic cVOrigene, Paris, 1884.
The notice of Origen in Bitter's Qesch. d.
Christ. Philos. 1858-9 is very meagre : that in
Ueberweg's Qesch. d. Philos. is much more
satisfactory. Unhappily Origen did not fall
within Zeller's scope.
II. Life. — The nationality and birthplace of
Origen are uncertain. It is probable that he
was born at Alexandria (Euseb. H. E. vi. 1),
but it has not been recorded whether he was of
Egyptian or Greek or mixed descent. The state-
ment of Epiphanius, that he was " an Egyptian
by race " (Haer. lxir. 1, Aiym-ws to? ytvti), is
not decisive even if his authority were higher ;
and the loose phrase of Porphyry, that he " was
a Greek and reared in Greek studies " (Euseb.
//. E. vi. 19), is in itself of little value, but the
name of his father (Leonides) points in the same
direction. His mother's name has not been pre-
served. Is it possible that she was of Jewish
descent ? Origen is said to have learnt Hebrew
so successfully that in singing the psalms " he
vied with his mother " (Hier. Ep. 39 (22), § 1).
Origen was the eldest of seven sons (Euseb.
H. E. vi. 2). Nothing however is known of
his brothers. His fame probably overshadowed
them ; and his father, though himself a martyr,
was distinguished as "Leonides the father of
Origen." •
• This appears to be the meaning of the words of
Euseblus (vi. 1), 6 Aryo^cvov 'Op. irarqp, which caused
Tillemont difficulty: Memoircs, Orig. note il. Accord-
ing to some late and insufficient authorities (Suidas, it.
'O/nyirtif and some HSS. of Hier. de Fir. ill.) Leonides
was a bishop.
H
Digitized by
Google
98
ORIGENES
The fall name of Origen was Origknks Ad-
amantks. The name Origenet was borne by
one contemporary philosopher of distinction,'
and occurs elsewhere. Thus the name of
" Aureliua Oi-igcnes, also called Apotlonius," a
prytanis of Arsinoe, occurs in a Greek inscrip-
tion set up in the city in A.D. 232-3 (Boeckh,
Inscrr. fir. No. 4705). Another," M. Aureliva
Apotlonius, also called Origme$, a Roman knight,"
is mentioned in another Greek inscription in the
Vatican as having constructed a " private box "
in some theatre (id. No. 6189 6).
The name Leonides is found in an inscription
at Kosseir (id. add. No. 4716 d") and in other
places. There can be no doubt that Origenes
(which is written in MSS. not unfrequently with
the rough breathing) is formed from the name
of the Egyptian deity Orus or Horns, popularly
identified with Apollo. Such names (e.g. Diony-
sius) were common among Christians. The name
Adamantius (bishop of Athens) occurs in Boeckh,
l.o. No. 9373. See also Euseb. H. E. vi. 14.
The name AdamantiU8 has commonly been
regarded as an epithet describing Origen'a un-
conquerable endurance (Hier. Ep. 33 (29), § 3,
where he also claims for Origen the epithet
XaAJteVrtpos given to Varro), or for the invin-
cible force of his arguments (Photius, Cod. 118).
But the language of Eusebius (H. E. vi. 14,
i yiroi ' ASa/iivTios Kal toOto "yip 1<v Ttf 'Clpi-
ytpti Svofta) and of Jerome himself (D« Vir. III.
54, Origenes qui et Adamantius) shews that it
was a second name, such as is given in the cases
quoted above, and not a mere adjunct. Epi-
phanios characteristically misrepresents the
truth when he speaks of Origen as having
"given himself in vain the surname of Ada-
mantius " (Hacr. lxiv. 73).
The date of Origen's birth is fixed within very
narrow limits by that of his father's martyrdom.
Leonides suffered in the persecution of the tenth
year of Severus (a.d. 202), and Origen at the
time had not completed his seventeenth year
(Euseb. H. E. vi. 2). He must have been born
therefore a.d. 185-6, a date which is consistent
with the further statement (Euseb. vii. 1) that
he died in his sixty-ninth year, in the reign of
Gallus (a.d. 251-254). In Origen we have the
first record of a Christian boyhood, and he was
" great from the cradle." His education was
superintended by his father, who specially
directed him to the stndy of Scripture, in addi-
tion to the ordinary subjects of instruction (r;
ray iyievKktuv muStla). The child entered
into the study with such eager devotion that
his inquiries into the deeper meaning of the
words which he committed to memory caused
his father perplexity, who, while he openly
checked his son's premature curiosity, silently
thanked God for the promise which he gave for
the future. As years Went on Origen became
the pupil of Pantaenns (after his return from
India) and Clement, in whose school he met
Alexander, afterwards bishop of Jerusalem
(Euseb; H. E. vi. 14) with whom he then laid
the foundation of that life-long friendship which
supported him in his sorest trials.
When Leonides was thrown into prison, Origen
would have shared his fate if he had not been
<• On this Origtnes, the Platonlst, see Zeller, Die Philo-
tophie d. Qricchm, v. 407.
ORIGENES
hindered by the device of his mother. As he
could do no more he addressed a letter to his
father — his first recorded writing, still extant in
the time of Eusebius— in which he prayed him
to allow no thought for bis family to shake his
resolution. Such an act shews at once the posi-
tion of influence which Origen already enjoyed
in his family and the power of his self-sacrifice.
Leonides was put to death, and his property was
confiscated. Upon this the young Origen seems
to have fulfilled the promise which his words
implied. Partly by the assistance of a pious
and wealthy lady, and partly by teaching, he
obtained all that he required for his own sup-
port and (as may be concluded) for the needs of
his mother and brothers. Already he collected
a library. At first he gave lessons in literature ;
but as the Christian school was now without a
teacher, all having been scattered by the persecu-
tion, he was induced to give instruction in the
Faith. Thus in his eighteenth year he occupied,
at first informally, the position which belonged
to the head of the Christian school in Alexandria
in a season of exceptional danger.* In this work
he obtained such success that after no long time
Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, definitely
committed to him the office, which had been
thrown upon him by circumstances. The charge
decided the tenor of his life (Hier. de Vir. III.
54, "decimo octavo aetatis suae anno Kcernxh-
atuv opus aggressus, postea a Demetrio...in
locum dementis presbyteri confirmatus "). From
this time Origen devoted himself exclusively to
the office of a Christian teacher ; and to ensure
his independence he sold his collection of classical
writers for an annuity of four oboli (sixpence) a
day, on which he lived for many years, refusing the
voluntary contributions which his friends offered
him (Euseb. H. E. vi. 3). His position at this
time is a remarkable illustration of the freedom
of the early church. He was a layman, and yet
recognised as a leading teacher. His work was
not confined within any district. Numbers of
men and women flocked to his lectures, attracted
in part by the stern simplicity of his life, which
served as a guarantee of his sincerity. For he
resolved to fulfil without reserve the precepts of
the Gospel. For many years he went barefoot,
and wore only a single robe (Matt. x. 10). He
slept upon the ground. His food and sleep were
rigorously limited (Euseb. B. E. vi. 3). Nor
did his unmeasured zeal stop here. In the same
spirit of sacrifice he applied to himself literally
the words of Matt. xix. 12, though wishing to
conceal the act from most of his friends. The-
act however could not remain hid. It was.
against the civil law (comp. Just. M. Ap. i. 29,
Otto's note), and utterly at variance with the
true instinct of the church, which at a later
time found formal expression (Cone. Ific. can. 1,
and Hefele's note). Origen's own comment on
the words of the gospel which he had misunder-
stood, is a most touching confession of his error
(in Matt. torn. xv. 1 ff.).* But for the time the-
purpose of the act was accepted as its excuse.
e Theanecdote preserved by Epiphanlus(Z7<wr. lxiv. 1>
of his proclaiming Christ on the steps of the temple of
Serapis, when forced there by the heathen population,
is probably to be referred to this date,
4 Boohringer (Origenet, pp. ZS ff) endeavours to shew
that the narrative Is a fable, but his arguments are not
convincing.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
OBIGENES
And when the matter came to the ears of De-
metrius, the bishop, so far from inflicting any
punishment, urged him still more to devote him-
self to the work of Christian instruction (Euseb.
H. E. vi. 8).
For twelre or thirteen years Origen was en-
gaged in these happy and successful labours ;
and it was during this period, in all probability,
that he formed and partly executed his plan of
a comparative view of the LXX in connexion
with the other Greek versions of the Old Testa-
ment, and with the original Hebrew text [Hex-
apla], though the work was slowly elaborated
as fresh materials came to his hands (Euseb.
H. E. vi. 16). To fit himself the better for the
work he learnt Hebrew, " contrary to the spirit
of his years and race " (Hier. de Vir. HI. 54, con-
tra aetatis gentisque suae naturam), though he
seems to have found a fellow-student in his
mother (Hier. Ep. 39 (22), § 1). From time to
time he refers to interpretations which were
given to him by his " Hebrew master " (De Princ.
I 3, 4; iv. 26; i 'Efipaus, Gr. fr. 7); and
Jerome says that he referred to " the Patriarch
Huillus," as having given him information on
many points (adv. Suf. i. § 13, comp. Set. in Ps.
xi. p. 352, L. "lovWos). A short visit to Rome
in the time of Zephyrinus, to see "the most
ancient church of the Romans " (Euseb. H. E.
vi. 14) and an authoritative call to Arabia (Euseb.
H. E. vi 19) alone seem to have interrupted the
fixed tenor of his life. Persecution tested the
fruit of his teaching. He hod the joy of seeing
martyrs trained in his school ; and his own
escapes from the violence of the people was held
to be due to the special protection of Providence
(Euseb. H. E. vi. 4, f. 3).
During the same period Origen devoted him-
self with renewed vigour to the study of non-
Christian thought, and attended the lectures of
Ammonias Saccas (comp. Porphyry, ap. Euseb.
H. E.vi. 19 ; Theodoret, Grace, affect, cur. vi.
p. 96).* Heretics and Gentiles attended his
lectures, and he felt bound to endeavour to
anderstand their opinions thoroughly, that he
might the better correct them (comp. c. Celt.
vi. 24). His conduct in this respect excited ill-
will, but he was able to defend himself, ss he
4id in a letter written at a later time (Ep. ap.
Euseb. M. E. vi. 19), by the example of his pre-
decessors and the support of his friends.
So Origen's work grew beyond his single
strength, and he associated Heraclas in the
labours of the catechetical school. Heraclas
had been one of his first converts and scholars,
and the brother of a martyr (Euseb. H. E. vi. 3).
He was a fellow-student with Origen under " his
teacher of philosophy " (Ammonius Saccas) ; and
when he afterwards became bishop of Alexandria
he did not even then lay aside the dress or the
reading of a philosopher (Euseb. H. E. vi. 19).
At length, c. 215 AJX, a tumult of unusual
violence (Euseb. H. E. vi. 19, oh OfUKpov Kara
rifw sroAjr aVctppnrortf ivros woXifiov ; comp. Hero-
dian. iv. 8, 9 ; Clinton, Fasti Bomani, i. 224 f.)
forced Origen to withdraw from Alexandria and
from Egypt. He took refuge in Palestine, at
* Tbe difficulties and objections which have been urged
in regard to this fact, from a supposed confusion of other
persons bearing the names of Ammonius and Origen, have
teen considered at length by L. KrUger in an essay In
niaen's ZtUtchr.f. kit. Thai. 1843, 1. 4» ff.
OKIGENES 99
Caesarea. Here his reputation brought him into
that position of prominence which became the
occasion of his later troubles. His fellow pupil,
Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistca
(Theotecnns ; Photius, Cod. 118), bishop of Cae-
sarea, begged him to expound the Scriptures in
the public services of the church, though he
had not been ordained. Demetrius of Alexandria
expressed strong disapprobation at a proceeding
which he ventured to describe as unprecedented.
Alexander and Theoctistus defended their conduct
by precedents. Demetrius replied by action. He
recalled Origen to Alexandria, and hastened his
return by special envoys, deacons of the church
(Euseb. H. E. vi. 19).
The stay of Origen in Palestine was of some
considerable length, and it seems most probable
that it was during this time he made his famous
visit to Mamaea, the mother of the emperor Alex-
ander (Euseb. H. E. vi. 21), who was herself a
native of Syria.'
Some time after his return to Alexandria
(c. 219), Origen entered upon a new form of
work, the written exposition of Scripture. This
was not the result of his own choice, but was due
in a great measure to the influence of Arobrosius
[Ambrosius], whom he had rescued not long
before from the heresy of Valentinus, or, as Jerome
says, of Marcion (Hier. de Vir. III. 56). Am-
brosius not only urged him to the task, bnt
amply supplied him with the means of fulfilling
it. More than seven shorthand writers (rax»-
ypdqioi) were provided to take down his com-
ments, and other scribes were ready to copy out
fairly what they had written (Euseb. H. E. vi.
23).
These literary occupations considerably cur-
tailed Origen's work in the catechetical school.
Some years before he had, as we have seen, as-
sociated Heraclas with himself in the conduct of
it, assigning to him the introductory instruction
of students (Euseb. H. E. vi. 15). He could
now therefore withdraw in a great measure from
the charge without disturbing the method of
teaching. At the same time the first parts of
his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John marked
him out more decisively than before as n teacher
in the church even more than in the school.
But the exhibition of this new power was accom-
panied by other signs of a bold originality which
might well startle those who were unfamiliar
with tbe questionings of philosophy. The books
On First Principles, which seem to have been
written spontaneously, made an epoch in Christian
speculation, as the Commentary on St. John made
an epoch in Christian interpretation. Under
such circumstances it is not surprising that
Demetrius yielded, in the words of Euscbius, to
the infirmity of human nature (B. E. vi. 8), and
wished to check the boldness and the influence
of the layman. It became clear that Origen
must seek somewhere else than in Alexandria the
full sanction and free scope for his Scriptural
studies. He did not however precipitate the
separation from a place where he had laboured
f Mnmaea was probably at Antloch In 218. Clinton
places the visit during Origen's later visit 326 (F. R. i.
239), on tbe assumption that Eusebtas states that tbe
visit took place "In the reign of Alexander and in the
episcopate of Fhlletus j " but the language of Euseblus.
due regard being had to his desultory style of narrative,
does not require this Interpretation.
H 2
Digitized by
Google
100
OEIGENE8
for more than fire and twenty yean. The oc-
casion came in an invitation to visit Achaia for
the purpose, as it seems, of combating some false
opinions which had arisen there (Hier. de Virr.
III. 54). The exact date is uncertain, bnt it was
probably between 226 and 230. Origen availed
himself of this call to visit Caesarea. It was
natural that he should seek counsel from his
oldest friends as to his future course ; and the
invitation to Achaia seems to have brought his
relations with Demetrius to a crisis. Photius,
on the authority of Pamphilus' " Apology "
{Cod. 118), says that he went "without the
consent (or even contrary to the judgment) of
his own bishop " (x«f>'r ■")$ tov oucelov yv&pris
im<ric6irov). Jerome again states that he was
furnished with " commendatory letters " (I.e. sub
testimonio ecclesiasticae epistolae). He may
therefore have gone to Caesarea to consider
whether he should accept the invitation, and,
in that case, to obtain the proper authorization.
No record remains of the deliberations which took
place. But the meeting issued in the ordination
of Origen as presbyter " by the bishops there "
(Euseb. H. E. vi. 23), Theoctistus of Caesarea and
Alexander of Jerusalem (Hier. de Virr. 111. 54 ;
Photius, Cod. 118). After taking this decisive
step Origen continued his journey to Greece.
He visited Ephesus (Ep. fragm. ap. Ruf. Apol.,
Dclarue, i. p. 6) and stayed some time at Athens,
and during this stay it is not unlikely that he
heard some of the teachers of philosophy there
(Epiph. Boer, lxiv. 1). At length, having com-
pleted his mission, he returned to Alexandria.
In returning to Alexandria Origen could not
have been unprepared for the reception which
awaited him from Demetrius. It is by no means
unlikely that Demetrius had shewn clear un-
willingness to admit him to the priesthood. He
may have regarded the act which had appeared
venial in the lay catechist as a fatal bar to ordina-
tion, according to the tenor of later canons. He
may perhaps have taken exception to some of
the details of Origen's teaching. But at any rate
the fact that Origen received orders from Pales-
tinian bishops without his consent, and probably
against his judgment, might be construed as
a direct challenge of his authority. Origen at
once perceived that he must retire before the
rising storm. The preface to the sixth book
of the Commentary on St. John shews how
deeply he felt the severance of old ties and the
hostility of former colleagues. But there was
no choice. In a.d. 231 he left Alexandria never
to return.* The act however was his own ; and
his influence to the last is shewn by the fact,
that he " left the charge of the catechetical
school " to his coadjutor Heraclas (Euseb. B. E.
vi. 26).»
< In Euseb. B. B. vi. 26 the reading Smutw is better
supported than &o&*kiltov.
h It Is hardly necessary to refer to the monstrous
story related by Eplphanius (Haer. lxiv. 2). If any one
cares to consider it. It Is enough to refer to Delarue's note
on Huet's Origeniana, I. 2, $ 13.
The passage quoted by Justinian, as from Peter of
Alexandria, In his letter to Menas, In which he is repre-
sented as saying that " the frantic Origen " caused great
trials to H.>raclas and Demetrius, is not of weightier
authority. The passage occurs In a speech in the martyr-
dom of 1>elc , iAeta siMerat MJgnf ^ t
uuct, t. c. 9 15.
ORIGEN ES
It is difficult to trace the different stages in
the condemnation which followed. Eusebius
treated of the matter at length in his " Apology "
(//. E. vi. 23), and therefore thought it unneces-
sary to repeat in his " History " what he had
already given in detail. The fragmentary notices
of writers at second or third hand are therefore
all that remain. Photius (Cod. 118) following
the " Apology " of Pamphilus and Eusebius, gives
the most intelligible and consistent account. Ac-
cording to him Demetrius, completely alienated
from Origen by his ordination, collected a synod
of " bishops and a few presbyters " (htuncmtmv
ko( rurnv TpfofivTfpav'), in which it was decided
that Origen should leave Alexandria and not be
allowed to stay or teach there. He was not how-
ever deposed from the priesthood, though it is
implied that Demetrius had made a proposition
to that effect. Demetrius was dissatisfied with
the result ; and combining with some Egyptian
bishops (without presbyters) he afterwards ex-
communicated Origen (koI itji itfmo-iyris i»«ir»J-
pv{e), and those who had voted with him before
now subscribed this new sentence. Jerome de-
scribes with greater severity the spirit of Deme-
trius' proceedings, and adds that " he wrote on
the subject to the whole world "(De Tir. HI. 54)
and obtained a judgment against Origen from
Rome (Ep. 33 (29), § 4).'
So far the facts are tolerably clear, but in the
absence of trustworthy evidence, it is impossible
to tell on what points the condemnation of Origen
really turned. Demetrius unquestionably laid
great stress on formal irregularities (Euseb.
H. E. vi. 8), and it is possible that the sentence
against him was based on these, thongh Origen's
opinions may have been displeasing to many.
Such a view finds support in the fact, that no
attempt was made to reverse the judgment after
the death of Demetrius, which followed very
shortly, and perhaps within three years, when
Heraclas, the pupil and colleague of Origen, suc-
ceeded to the episcopate. Nor again was any-
thing done by Dionysius, the successor of Hera-
clas, another devoted scholar of Origen, who still
continued his intercourse with his former master
(Euseb. B. E. vi. 46).
Whatever may have been the grounds of
Origen's condemnation, the judgment of the
Egyptian synod was treated with absolute dis-
regard by the bishops of Palestine, Arabia,
Phoenicia, and Achnea (Hier. Ep. 33), and Origen
defended himself warmly (Hier. Apol. adv. Ruf.
ii. 18). He soon afterwards settled at Caesarea,
which became for more than twenty years, up to
his death, the centre of his labours. It had
indeed not a few of the advantages of Alexandria,
as a great seaport, the civil capital, and the
ecclesiastical metropolis of its district.
At Caesarea Origen found ungrudging sym-
pathy and help for his manifold labours. Alex-
ander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea
remained devoted to him ; and Firmilian of
Caesarea in Cappadocia was no less zealous in
seeking his instruction (Euseb. B. E. vi. 27;
■ The statement quoted by Jutlnlan, that Origen was
expelled by Heraclas, Is wholly unworthy of credit. It
probably arose from the fact that Heraclas did not recal
him. The reading tatiiamr. In Euseb. H. B. vl. 26, may
be a trace of the belief in this apocryphal statement.
Conip. Hue*, Origeniana, I. 2, y is, and Delano's
notes.
Digitized by
Google
OEIGENES
Uier. ds Ftr. HI. 54, din Caesareae in Sanctis
Scripturis ab eo eruditus est). Ambrosius was
with him to stimulate and maintain his literary
efforts. He formed afresh something of a cate-
chetical school ; and the highest forms of his
philosophical teaching were exercised by the
presence of a continual succession of distin-
guished students. At the same time he was
unwearied in the public exposition of Scripture.
It was his practice to explain it popularly to
mixed congregations in the church, to Christians
and to catechumens (Horn, in Ezech. vi. § 5). As
a role he gave these lectures on Wednesdays and
Fridays (Socr. H. E. v. 22, if nrpiSi jcdl rg
\eyofUry -rafxuTKfvp), but in practice he gave
them daily, and at times oftener than once a day.
His subjects were sometimes taken from the
lessons {Horn, in Num. iv. 1 ; t'n 1 Sam. ii. § 1),
and sometimes specially prescribed to him by an
authoritative request (Ham. in Ezech. xiii. 1).
His aim was the edification of the people gene-
rally (Bom. in Lev. vii. 1 ; m Jvd. viii. 3) ; and
not unfrequently he was constrained to speak,
as he wrote, with come reserve, on the deeper
mysteries of the Faith (Horn, in Num. iv. 3 ; in
Lev. xiii. 3 ; in Ezech. i. 3 ; in Bom. vii. 13,
p. 147 L ; viii. 11, p. 272 ; comp. Horn, in Jos.
xxiii. 4 *./. ; t'n Gen. xii. 1, 4).
These labours were interrupted by the perse-
cution of Maximinus (a.d. 235-237). Ambrosius
and Protectetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, were
among the victims. Origen addressed to them
hi* Exhortation to Martyrdom, while they were
in prison. He himself escaped (Euseb. H. E.
vi. 28). During part of the time for which the
persecution continued he seems to have been with
Firmilian in Cappadocia, and while there is said
to have enjoyed the hospitality of a Christian
lady, Juliana, who had some of the books of
Syromachus, the translator of the Old Testament
(comp. Hier. I.e. Firmilianus. . .cum omni Cap-
padocia earn invitavit et diu tenuit. Pallad. Hist.
Lous. 147).
In 238 or perhaps in 237, k Origen was again
at Caesarea, and Gregory (Thaumaturgus) de-
livered the Farewell Address, which is the most
vivid picture left of the method and influence of
the great Christian master. In this the scholar
recounts, with touching devotion, the course
along which be had been guided by the man
to whom he felt that he owed his spiritual life.
He had come to Syria to study Roman law in
the school of Berytus, but on his way there he
met with Origen, and at once felt that he had
found in him the wisdom for which he was
seeking. The day of that meeting was to him,
in his own words, the dawn of a new being :
his soul clave to the master whom he recognised,
and he surrendered himself gladly to his guid-
ance. As Origen spoke, he kindled within the
young advocate's breast a love for the Holy
Word, the most lovely of all objects, and for him-
aelf the Word's herald. "This love," Gregory
adds, "induced me to give up country and friends,
the aims which I had proposed to myself, the
study of law of which I was proud. I had but
* Drieeke, Der Brief d. Oria. an Gregmiat, Jahrb. f.
Protest Thai. 1881, s. 106. Driseke gives good reasons
lor dating Origen's letter to Gregory in 235-6 (not in
240 from Cappadocia, when Gregory had retired to Alex-
andrlt.
OKIGENES
101
one passion, philosophy, and the godlike man
who directed me in the pursuit of it " (c. 6).
Origen's first care, Gregory says, was to make
the character of a pupil bis special study. In
this he followed the example of Clement (Clem.
Strom, i. 1, 8, p. 320, P). He ascertained, with
delicate and patient attention, the capacities, the
faults, the tendencies of those whom he had to
teach. Rank growths of opinion were cleared
away : weaknesses were laid open : every effort
was used to develope endurance, firmness, pa-
tience, thoroughness. " In true Socratic fashion
he sometimes overthrew us by argument," Gre-
gory writes, " if he saw us restive and starting
out of the course... The process was at first
disagreeable to us and painful ; but so he purified
us . . . and . . . prepared us for the reception of
the words of truth . . . ," " by probing us and
questioning us, and offering problems for our
solution " (c. 7). In this way Origen taught his
scholars to regard language as designed, not to
furnish material for display, but to express truth
with the most exact accuracy ; and logic as
powerful, not to secure a plausible success, but
to test beliefs with the strictest rigour.
This was the first stage of intellectual disci-
pline, the accurate preparation of the instru-
ments of thought. In the next place, Origen led
his pupils to apply them first to the "lofty and
divine and most lovely" study of external nature.
Here he stood where we stand still, for he made
Geometry the sure and immovable foundation
of his teaching, and from this rose step by step
to the heights of heaven and the most sublime
mysteries of the universe (c. 8). Gregory's lan-
guage implies that Origen was himself a student
of physics ; as, in some degree, the true theo-
logian must be. The lessons of others, he writes,
or his own observation, enabled him to explain
the connexion, the differences, the changes of the
objects of sense. Such investigations served to
shew man in his true relation to the world. A
rational feeling for the vast grandeur of the ex-
ternal order, " the sacred economy of the uni-
verse," as Gregory calls it, was substituted for
the ignorant and senseless wonder with which it
is commonly regarded.
But Physics were naturally treated by Origen
as a preparation and not as an end. Moral
Science came next ; and here he laid the greatest
stress upon the method of experiment. His aim
was not merely to analyse and to define and to
classify feelings and motives, though he did this,
but to form a character. For him ethics were a
life, and not only a theory. The four cardinal
virtues of Plato, practical wisdom, self-control,
righteousness, courage, seemed to him to require
for their maturing careful and diligent intro-
spection and culture. And here he gave a com-
mentary upon his teaching. His discipline lay
even more in action than in precept. His own
conduct was in his scholar's minds a more in-
fluential persuasive than his arguments.
So it was, Gregory continues, that Origen was
the first teacher who really led me to the pur-
suit of Greek philosophy, by bringing speculation
into » vital union with practice. In him I saw
the inspiring example of one wise at once and
holy. The noble phrase of older masters gained
a distinct meaning for the Christian disciple.
In failure and weakness he was enabled to per-
ceive that the end of all was " to become like to
Digitized by
Google
102
OEIGENES
God with • pure mind, and to draw near to Him
and to abide in Him " (c. 12).
Guarded and guided by this conviction, Origen
encouraged his scholars in theology to look for
help in all the works of human genius. They
were to examine the writings of philosophers
and poets of every nation, the atheists alone
excepted, with faithful candour and wise catho-
licity. For them there was to be no sect, no
party. And in their arduous work they had
ever at hand, in their master, a friend who knew
the difficulties of the ground to be traversed.
If they were bewildered in the tangled mazes of
conflicting opinions, he was ready to lead them
with a firm hand: if they were in danger of
being swallowed up in the quicksands of shifting
error, he was near to lift them up to the sure
restiug-place which he had himself found (c. 14).
Even yet the end was not reached. The hier-
archy of sciences was not completed till Theology
with her own proper gifts crowned the succes-
sion which we have followed hitherto, Logic,
Physics, Ethics. New data corresponded with
the highest philosophy, and Origen found in the
Holy Scriptures and the teaching of the Spirit
the final and absolute spring of Divine Truth.
It was in this region that Gregory felt his
master's power to be supreme. Origen's sovereign
command of the mysteries of " the oracles of
God " gave him perfect boldness in dealing with
all othur writings. " Therefore," Gregory adds,
" there was no subject forbidden to us, nothing
hidden or inaccessible. We were allowed to be-
come acquainted with every doctrine, barbarian
or Greek, on things spiritual or civil, divine and
human ; traversing with all freedom, and inves-
tigating the whole circuit of knowledge, and
satisfying ourselves with the full enjoyment of
all the pleasures of the soul . . . " (c. 15).
Such in meagre outline was, as Gregory tells
us, the method of Origen. He describes what
he knew and what his hearers knew. There is
no parallel to the picture in ancient times. And
when every allowance has been made for the
partial enthusiasm of a pupil, the view which it
offers of a system of Christian training actually
realised exhibits a type which we cannot hope to
surpass. The ideal of Christian education and
the ideal of Christian philosophy were fashioned
together. Under that comprehensive and loving
discipline Gregory, already trained in heathen
schools, first learnt, step by step, according to
his own testimony, what the pursuit of philo-
sophy truly was, and came to know the solemn
duty of forming opinions which were to be not
the amusement of a moment, but the solid foun-
dations of life-long work.
The method of Origen, such as Gregory has
described it, in all its breadth and freedom, was
forced upon him by what he held to be the
deepest law of human nature. It may be true
(and he admitted it) that we are, in our present
state, but poorly furnished for the pursuit of
knowledge, but he was never weary of proclaim-
ing that we are at least born to engage in the
endless search. If we see some admirable work
of man's art, he says, we are at once eager to
investigate the nature, the manner, the end of
its production ; and the contemplation of the
works of God stirs us with an incomparably
greater longing to learn the principles, the
method, the purpose of creation. " This desire,
OBIGENES
this passion, has without doubt," he continues,
" been implanted in as by God. And as the eye
seeks the light, as our body craves food, so our
mind is impressed with the characteristic and
natural desire of knowing the truth of God and
the causes of what we observe." Such a desire,
since it is a divine endowment, carries with it
the promise of future satisfaction. In our pre-
sent life we may not be able to do more, by the
utmost toil, than obtain some small fragments
from the infinite treasures of divine knowledge,
still the concentration of our souls upon the
lovely vision of truth, the occupation of our
various faculties in lofty inquiries, the very
ambition with which we rise above our actual
powers, is in itself fruitful in blessing, and tits
us better for the reception of wisdom hereafter
at some later stage of existence. Now we draw
at the best a faint outline, a preparatory sketch
of the features of Truth : the true and living
colours will be added there. Perhaps, he con-
cludes most characteristically, that is the mean-
ing of the words, " to every one that hath shall
be given ; " by which we are assured that he
who has gained in this life some faint outline of
truth and knowledge will have it completed in
the age to come with the beauty of the perfect
image (De Princ. ii. 11, 4).
While Caesarea remained Origen's permanent
home he visited different parts of Palestine ;
Jerusalem,' Jericho, the valley of the Jordan
(Tom. vi. in Joh. § 24) ; Sidon, where he made
some stay (Horn, in Josh. xvi. § 2), partly at
least to investigate " the footsteps of Jesus, and of
His disciples, and of the prophets" (in Joh. I. cj.
He also went again to Athens and continued there
for some time, being engaged on his Commentaries
(Euseb. B. E. vi. 32). Two visits to Arabia were
of more characteristic interest. In the first he
went to confer with Beryllus of Bostra, who had
advanced false views on the Incarnation (Euseb.
H. E. vi. 33) ; and in the second to meet some
errors on the doctrine of the resurrection (id.
vi. 37). In both cases he was specially invited,
and in both cases he justified his reputation by
persuading those whom he controverted to aban-
don their opinions.™
Origen's energy now rose to its full power.
Till he was sixty (A..D. 246) he had forbidden his
unwritten discourses to be taken down. Ex-
perience then at length enabled him to withdraw
the prohibition, and most of his homilies are due
to reports made afterwards. The Books against
Celsus, and the Commentaries on St. Matthew, be-
long to the same period, and shew, in different
directions, the maturity of his vigour.
Thus his varied activity continued till the
persecution of Decius in 250. The preceding
reign of Philip had favoured the growth of
Christianity ; and there is no sufficient reason
to question the fact of Origen's correspondence
with the emperor and his wife Severs (Euseb.
H. E. vi. 36). Such intercourse marked Origen
out for attack to Philip's conqueror and auc-
> Perhaps the story given by Epiphanlus (Haer. lxiv. 3)
of bis reading PS. 1. 16, when constrained to address
the church there, and then closing the book with tears
while all wept about him, may be a reminiscence of
something which happened daring this time.
d Specimens of his oral controversy with a Jew are
preserved in c. Oris. L 48, 66 1
Digitized by
Google
ORIGENES
cesser. His friend Alexander of Jerusalem died
in prison. He himself suffered a variety of tor-
tares, probably at Tyre,— chains, the iron collar,
and the rack, bat his constancy baffled all the
efforts of his enemies (Euseb. //. E. vi. 39). Ho
was threatened with the stake, and a report
gained currency in later times that his suffer-
ings were crowned by death (Photius, Cod. 118,
p. 159). Daring this sharp trial his former pupil
Dionysius, now bishop of Alexandria, addressed
to him a letter on martyrdom (Euseb. H. E. vi.
46). The testimony is valuable as shewing that
the old affection was still alive, in spite of long
separation. Origen himself described his suffer-
ings and his consolations in letters which Euse-
bius characterizes " as full of help to those who
seed encouragement " (//. E. vi. 39).
The death of Decius (251, Clinton, F. E. i. 270),
after a reign of two years, set Origen free. But
his health must have been broken by the hard-
ships which he had endured. He died at Tyre,
in the next year (253), "having completed
seventy years save one " (Euseb. H. E. vii. 1 ;
Hieron. Ep. 65 ad Pammach.). Origen was
buried in the city where he died (William of
Tyre (c. 1180), Hut. xiii. 1: "haec (Tyrus) et
Origenis corpus occultat sicut oculata fide etiam
hodie licet inspicere"),and his tomb was honoured
as long as the city survived. When a cathedral,
named after the Holy Sepulchre, was built there,
his body is said to have occupied the place of
greatest honour, being enclosed in the wall be-
hind the high altar (Cotovicus (1598), Itin.
Hier. p. 121 : " pone altare maximum magni
Origenis corpus conditum ferunt"). The same
church received, in a later age (a.d. 1190), the
remains of Barbarossa; but the name of the
great theologian prevailed over the name of the
great warrior. Burchard, who visited Tyre in
the last quarter of the 13th century (c. 1283),
taw the inscription in Origen's memory in a
building which was amazing for its splendour.
<Burchardus, Sescript. Terrao Sanctae, p. 25, ed.
Laurent. : " Origenes ibidem in ecclesia sancti
sepnlcri reqaiescit in muro conclusus. Cujus
tit ulam ibidem vidi " (the edition of 1587 adds et
leg*). "Sunt ibi columpnae marmoreae et aliorum
lapidnm tarn magnae, quod stupor est videre.")
Before the close of the century the city was
wasted by the Saracens ; but if we may trust
the words of a traveller at the beginning of the
16th century (c 1520), the inscription was still
preserved on "a marble column sumptuously
adorned with gold and jewels." (Bart, de Sali-
gniaco, Itin. Hier. ix. 10: "In templo sancti
sepnlcri Origenis doctOTis ossa magno in honore
servantor, quorum titulos est in columnn mar-
morea magno sumptu gemmarum et auri.") It
is not unlikely, I fear, that this statement is a
false rendering of Burchard 's notice. Burchard'i
book was very widely known in the 16th cen-
tury. The statements of Adrichonius (Tlieatr.
T. S. Jr. Aser, 84), which are repeated by Huet
and others, have no independent value whatever.
Not long after, the place where Origen lay was
only known by tradition. The tradition however
still lingers about the ruins of the city ; for it
is said that the natives point out the spot where
u Oriunus " lies under a vault, the relic of an
ancient church, now covered by their huts.
Prutx, Am PhBnicien, 219, 306, quoted by
Piper, Zeitschr. fir Kirchengesch. 1876, p. 208.
OBIGENES
103
Into the later fortunes of Origen's teaching
we do not enter. It is enough to say that his
fate after death was like his fate during life : he
continued to witness not in vain to noble truths.
His influence was sufficiently proved by the per-
sistent bitterness of his antagonists, and there
are few sadder pages in church history than the
record of the Origenistic controversies. But in
spite of errors which it was easy to condemn,
his characteristic thoughts survived in the works
of Hilary and Ambrose and Jerome, and in his
own Homilies, to stir later students in the West.
His Homilies had indeed a very wide circulation
in the middle ages in their Latin translation ;
and it would be interesting to trace their effect
upon mediaeval commentators down to the time
when Erasmus wrote to Colet in 1504 : " Origenis
operum bonam partem evolvi ; quo pnteceptore
mini videor non-nullum fecisso operae pretium ;
aperit enim fontes quosdam ct rationes indicat
nrtis theologicae." That however cannot be
done here. [Oiugenistic Controversies.]
III. Chronology op Wouks. — The works of
Origen, of which some notice has been pre-
served, were produced, as far as can be ascer-
tained, in the following chronological order.
The titles of those which still remain, wholly
or in part (otherwise than in isolated frag-
ments), in the original, or in a translation,
are printed in capitals.
1. Before Origen's removal from Alexandria
(A.D. 231).
The commencement of the Hiqupla.
Commentary on the Canticles. 'YironnjtioTa
(perhaps uot published : Euseb. B.E. vi. 18).
228-331. CoHUEKTAKT (Tojik) OX THS GOSPEL OF St.
Jonx (Books i.-v.), Euseb. B. E. vl. 24.
Commentaries on PS. L-xxv. (Euseb. B. B.
vi.24).
Commentaries on Genesis, Books i.-viil.
(Euseb. Z. c).
On the Resurrection (two books), mentioned
in tbo Commentaries on tbe Lamentations
(Euseb. B. E. vl. 24).
Commentaries on the Lamentations (five
books remained in the time or Enseblus,
B. E. I. c).
Commentaries on Exodus, books 1. li. ■
Ox riasT Pkikcipi.es, four books (Euseb.
B. E. vl. 24).
Jditcdlanies (Srpopantt), ten books (Euseb.
I.e.). Comp. Tom. in Joh. xiii. 45; Hier.
Praef. ad Gal. ; Comm. on Dan. xiii. ; Ep.
ad August. cxlL 6 ; ad Pammaclt. lxxxlv.
Ox Pbater (date uncertain).
On frct-v>ill (the date Is doubtful : comp. in
Bam. vii. } I64 Cramer, Catena, 1 Pet. 1. 4).
2. After Origen's withdrawal to Caesarea
(231).
Commentaries (Homilies) on 1 dor. (before
Coram, on St. Lake).
Homilies on Deuteronomy.
Commentaries on St. Luke (Ave books): Hier.
Prol. Bom. in Luc.
Homilies ox St. Luke.
212-238. Commextakies oh St. Johx continued,
Books vi. IT. (Euseb. B. E. vi. 28).
235-6. Letter to Gregory of Nco-Caesarea.
Commentaries on Generis, Books ix.-xli. (xllL).
Mystical Homilies on Genesis.
335. Exhobtatiox to Mabttbdoh (Euseb. B. E.
Vi. 28).
Homilies (nine) on Judges (date uncertain;
before Ccram. on Canticles).
Digitized by
Google
104
ORIGENES
235. HojiiLiES (nine) ox Isaiah (date uncertain).
Commentaries on Isaiah (thirty books, ex-
tending to "the vision of the beasts in the
wilderness:*' extant in the time of Eusc*
blus, H. E. vL 32).
c.238-240. Commentaries on Esekitl, twenty-flve books
on the whole prophet, finished at Athens
(Euseb. I.e.)
0. 210. Letteb to Julius AraicAxus on the Greek
additions to Daniel.
COJIMESTARIKS OK THE CANTICLES, five books
written at Athens, the remaining five at
Caesarca (Euseb. 2. c).
C. SU. Homilies (kise) os Psalms xxxvl.-xxxvili.
- To this period may probably be assigned the
Commentaries and notes on Exodus and
Leviticus : the Commentaries on Isaiah
and the Minor Prophets: the Notes on
lumbers: the Homilies and detached notes
on the Historical Books : the completion of
the Commentary on the Psalms.
after 214. Homilies taken down from bis extempore
addresses (Euseb. IT. B. vl. 36) on the first
four books of the Pentateuch, on Joshua,
on Judges (doubtful), en Jeremiah (pro-
bably), on Ezekikl.
Conn kntaiiies (fifteen books) ox the Epistle
TO THE ROHAKS.
Hexafla finished (Eplph. depond. et stent.
18).
COMMENTARIES OX St. MATTHEW (EuSeb.
H. E. vl. 36).
Letters to Fabianus and others (Euseb. I. c).
Commentaries (three books) on 1 Thess., and
(perhaps) the Commentaries on Gakttiam,
Ephesians, the other Epistles of St. Paul,
and on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
210. The eight Books aoaixst Celsus (Euseb.
S. E. vl. 36).
Pamphilus made a collection of Origen's writ-
ings in the library at Caesarea, transcribing a
great part of them with his own hand (Hier.
de I't'r. HI. 75). In the next century the library
had fallen to decay, and it was restored by
Euzoius, bishop of the city (id. 113). A relic
of it remains in the Coislin MS. (H, of St.
Paul's Epistles), which is said to have been
collated with a copy at Caesarea written by
Pamphilus.
IV. Writings.
The multitudeof Origen's writings was a marvel
to later scholars, and even a cause of anxious
thought to himself (PAiVoc. c. v.). Epiphanius
says (Haer. lxiv. 63) that in popular reports
(0 fSerat) no less than 6000 works were
ascribed to him. Jerome denies the trnth of his
statement (Ep. lxxxii. 7), and brings down the
number to a third (Adv. Ruf. ii. c. 22 ; cf. c 13).
It is not unlikely (comp. Redepenning, in
Niedner's Zeitschrift, 1851, 67 f.) that there was
some early error in the cipher used by Eusebius
in his Life of Pamphilus, from whom others
drew their information (as of Stigma, 6000, for
Sampi, 600) ; but the question is of no moment.
The fact of the voluminousness of Origen's works
does not depend upon determining their number.
His works will be noticed in the following
order : A. Exegetical, pp. 104-18 ; B. Dogma-
tical, pp. 119-122 ; C. Apologetic, pp. 122-4 ;
D. Practical, p. 124 ; F. Letters, p. 125 ; G.
Philocalia, pp. 125-6.*
• Jerome, in a letter addressed to Paula about 384, of
which parts have been preserved by Rufinns (Apol. II.
20 ; Hler. Ep. xxxlil.), compares the writings of Orlgen
with those of the most voluminous classical writers, Varro
ORIGENES
A. Exegetical Writings.
Epiphanius states, in general terms, that
Origen undertook to comment on all the books
of Scripture (Haer. lxiv. 3). Such a statement
from such a man is of very little value, but in-
dependent and exact evidence goes far to confirm,
it. In the following sections a short account
will be given, in the common order of the books
of Scripture, of Origen's labours upon them.
His exegetical writings, it must be noted, are
of three kinds: detached Notes (Zxo'a.io, otj-
IMiiads, in the narrower sense, excerpta, com-
muticvm interpretandi genus), Homilies addressed
to popular audiences ('OfuXitu, Tractalua), and
complete and elaborate. Commentaries (To/««,
<rnp(uier*.is in the wider sense, volumina). Comp.
Hier. tit Ezech. Prol. ; Praef. Cmnm. in Matt. ;
Rutin. Praef. in Num.
1. Writings on the Old Testament.
i. The Pentateuch.
Genesis.
Origen, according to Eusebius, wrote twelve
books of Commentaries (To'/u>i) on Genesis, of
which the first eight were written before he left
Alexandria (H. E. vi. 24). Jerome gives the
number of books as thirteen (Ruf. Apol. ii. 20),
and mentions that the thirteenth book contained
a discussion of Gen. iv. 15. In c. Cels. v. 49,
Origen refers to his work on Genesis " from the
beginning of the book to v. 1 ; " and there is no-
evidence that his detailed commentary went
further.
The two books of mystical Homilies (Ruf.
Apol. ii. 20) seem to have been distinct from
the seventeen homilies which remain in a Latin
translation ; and the notice of Melchizedek, to
which Jerome refers (Ep. ad Evang. 72), was
probably found in them. (14 " Books " on
Genesis ; 2 books " localium [moralium] ome-
liarum ; " 17 Homilies.— H. C.)
Of these writings there remain :
Oreek.
(1) On Gen. L 2 ; Fragm. of Tom. iii. on Gen.
i. 14 ; i. 16 f.
Huet, 1. 1-W.
Delarue," U. 1-24.
and Didymus the grammarian (Chalcenteros) j and after
giving a catalogue of Origen's works, concludes: ** Vide-
tisne et Graecos pariter et Latinos unlus labors
supe'ratos?"
The catalogue In the common texts is reduced to a few
lines ; but Sir T. Phillips was fortunate enough to find a
copy of the letters in a MS. of the 12th century at Arras*
in which the list of the works of Varro and Origen Is
given In full. The catalogue of Origen's writings has
been reprinted, from a copy privately circulated by Sir T.
Phillips, with a short notice by Redepenning, In Niedner's
Zeitschrtft, 1861, 66 ff. It has not seemed worth while to
reprint the catalogue at length, but 1 have added under
the different heads the testimony of the catalogue with
the letters H. C.
The list does not include the Book against Celtus, or
the address on Prayer; the latter, however, may have
been included In the collections of letters. On the other
hand, it contains the title of a BomUy on Peace, two
Homilies, de jejunis de monogamis et trigamis, and of
two Homilies at Tarsus. It also mentions the Dialogue
with Candidas the Yalentinian, which was known to
Jerome (Apol. adv. Ruf. ii. 18 f.)
° It may be worth while to notice that the name is
always spelt as one word In the titles and notices In tha
French as well as in the Latin text.
Digitized by
Google
OBIGENES
(2) Fragm. of Tom. iii. (Euseb. H. E. iii. 1);
notes from Catenae ; Eragm. of Horn. ii.
Delarae, ii. 23-53, 60 ff.
(3) Additional notes.
Galland, BMiotk. xtv. app. 3 ff. The additional
notes from Galland, and some of those from
Mai, with one note from Cramer's Catena, are
given in a supplementary volume of Migne.
(1) and (2) are given by Lommatisch. Till. 1-104.
Lata.
Seventeen Homilies, of which the last is im-
perfect, translated by Rufinus. The transla-
tion, as in other cases, is sometimes falsely
ascribed to Jerome, e.g. in Merlin's edition.
Delarae, ii. 52-110.
Lotnmatxsch, vlli. 105-298.
The MSS. of the Latin Homilies on the books
of the Old Testament, it may be observed once
for all, are very abundant. The most interesting
which I hare seen is one in the British Museum,
Add. 15,307, written in 1163, which deserves
collation.
One of the fragments of the Commentary on
Genesis contains a remarkable discussion of the
theory of fate in connexion with Gen. i. 16
(quoted by Euseb. Praep. Ev. vi. ell, and given
in Phtloc. 23 [22] ; comp. Euseb. 1. c vii. 20) ;
and in the scattered notes there are some
characteristic remarks on the interpretation of
the record of Creation. (See notes on i. 26 ;
ii. 2, 16 ; iii. 21.) For Origen all Creation
was " one act at once," presented to us in parts,
in order to give the due conception of order
(comp. Ps. cxlviii. 5).
The Homilies, which were taken down from
Origen's extemporary addresses (after A.D. 244),
were translated by Rufinus, with such additions
as he thought requisite to complete the inter-
pretation of the passages touched upon (Praef.
ad Rom.). They deal mainly with the moral
application of main subjects in the book :
U Gen. i. The origin qf the world and a/ that
which is in it.
O. „ vL 13-16. The construction qf the Ark.
111. w xvii. 1-14. The circumcision qf Abraham.
iv. , xviii. 1-21. The visit qf the three men to
Abraham.
v. „ xlx. Lot and hit daughters.
vi. * xx. The history qf Abimelech.
vii. „ xxL The weaning qf Isaac and ejection
oflshmael.
viii. „ xxll. 1-14. The offering qf Isaac.
ix. * xxil. 15-17. The renewed promise to
Abraham.
x. „ xxiv. Hcbecca at the wdl.
xt. » xxv. Abraham and Keturah; Isaac at
the welt of vision.
xii. „ xxv. 21 IT. ; xxvl. 12. The birth qf Esau
and Jacob.
xlli. „ xxvl. 17 ft*. The wells qf Isaac.
xiv. „ xxvl. 26 ff. Isaac and Abimelech.
xv. » xlv. 25 f. The return qf the sons qf Jacob
from Egypt.
xvi. „ xlvll. 20 f. The policy qf Joseph.
xvii. „ xlix. The blessings qf the patriarchs.
They contain little continuous exposition, but
abound in striking thoughts. Among the pas-
sages of chief interest may be named the view
of the Divine image and the Dirine likeness, as
expressing man's endowment and man's end
(i. §§ 12, 13), the symbolism of the ark (ii
OBIGENES
105
§§ 4 ff.}, the nature of the Divine voice (iii. § 2)'
the lesson of the opened wells (xiii. § 4), the
poverty of the Divine priesthood (xvi. § 5).
Exodus and Leviticus.
Of the Books, Homilies, and Notes, which Origen
wrote on Exodus and Leviticus, no detailed ac-
count has been preserved. (Comp. th Rom. ix.
§ 1, p. 283 L; Ruf. Apol. ii. 20 ; Hier. Ep. 33.)
(Notes on Exodus ; ten " Books " on Leviticus ;
Notes. Thirteen Homilies on Exodus ; eleven on
Leviticus. — H. C.)
The following remain :
Exodus.
Greek.
(1) On Ex. x. 27. (Several fragment*.)
Huet, i. 17-25.
Delarae, IL 111-120.
(2) Notes from Catenae. Two short fragment*
of Horn. viii.
Delaruc, U. 121-129, 158.
(3) Additional notes.
Galland, I. c. p. 6.
(1) and (2) are given by Lommatxscb, vtli. 299—
332.
Latin.
Thirteen Homilies, translated by Rufinus.
Delarae, IL 129-178.
Lommatxscb, lx. 1-162.
The main fragment of the Commentary on
Exodus (Philoc. 27 [26]) deals with interpretation
of the " hardening of Pharaoh's heart "(Ex. x. 27),
which Origen (to use modern language) finds in
the action of moral laws, while Pharaoh resisted
the divine teaching.
The Homilies, like those on Genesis, were
translated by Rufinus from the reports of
Origen's sermons, which he supplemented with
interpretative additions (I.e.). They deal with
the following topics :
L Ex. i. 1-10. The multiplying of the people and
the strange king,
ii. „ 1. 15-22. The Egyptian mldwlves.
111. „ Iv. lo-v. The Uisaion of Moses and Aaron,
iv. „ vii. ff. The ten plagues,
v. „ xii. 37 ff. The Exodus,
vl. „ xv. 1-22. The Song of Moses,
vii. „ xv. 23-xvL 12. The waters of Marah and
the Manna,
vlli. „ xx. 1-6. The first Two Commandments.
Ix. „ xxv. The Tabernacle.
x. n xxl. 22-26. Miscarriage from strife,
xi. „ xvll. xviii. Rcphidlm : Amalck : Jethro.
xii. „ xxxlv. 33 f. The glory of the face of Moses,
xiii. „ xxxv. Freewill offerings of the Tabernacle.
Throughout Origen dwells upon the spiritual
interpretation of the record. " Not one iota or
one tittle is," in his opinion, " without mysteries "
(Horn. i. 4). The literal history has a mystical
and a moral meaning (e.g. Hum. i. 4 f. ; ii. 1 ;
iii. 3 ; iv. 8 ; vii. 3 ; x. 4 ; xiii. 5). Some of the
applications which he makes are of great beauty,
as, for example, in regard to the popular com-
plaints against religious life, and the troubles
which follow religious awakening (Ex. v. 4 ff.,
Horn. iii. 3) ; the difficulties of the heavenward
pilgrimage (Ex. xiv. 2, Horn. v. 3) ; the believer
as the tabernacle of God (Horn. ix. 4) ; turning'
to the Lord (Ex. xxxiv. 34, coll. 2 Cor. iii. 16,
Horn. xii. 2) ; the manifold offerings of different
believers (Ex. xxxv. 5, Horn. xiii. 3).
Digitized by
Google
106
ORIGENES
Leviticus.
Greek.
(1) Fragm. of Horn. 2 (5).
Huet, L 26.
Delarue, ii. 192 f.
(2) Notes from Catenae.
Delarne, 11. 180-184.
(3) Additional notes.
Gotland, I.e. 6 r.
(4) A fragment (comp. Horn, in Lev. viii. 6),
Mai, Class. Avet. t. x. p. 600.
(1) and (2) are given by Lommatzsch, lx. 163-171.
Latin.
Sixteen Homilies (translated by Rufinus).
Delarne, U. 184-269.
Lommatssch, lx. 112-446.
The main substance of the Greek Notes is con-
tained in the translation of the Homilies. The
fragment given in Philocalia (c. 1), as from the
second Homily, is found in the fifth Latin Homily
(§ 1), though, by a strange oversight, writers,
from Huet {Orig. iii. 2. 1 : " cujus ne apicemqui-
dem in Homilia Latinae editionis secunda aliisve
reperias ") downwards, have said that it is not
found in the Latin.
The Latin translation of the Homilies was
made by Rufinus, who speaks of it as having been
a work of considerable labour, as he altered their
character from hortatory to interpretative {Peror.
Ep. ad Rom. : " quae ab illo [Origene] quidem
perorandi stilo a nobis vero explonondi specie
translata sunt ").
The Homilies treat of the following subjects :
L Lev. 1. 1-9. On offerings generally.
U.
ill.
tL „
vU. »
vill. „
lx. „
x. „
Xl. n
ail. »
xul. „
xlv. „
XV. „
xvi. .,
iv. 3 J 21 f. On the different persons who
offer: the priest, "a soul of the people
of the land."
v. 1 ff. On offerings lor Involuntary
offences.
vl. 1-23. Offering for offences committed
knowingly: burnt-offering.
vL 24-vil. 34. Sin-offering : trespass offer-
ing: peace-offering.
vii. SS-vlll. 13. The consecration and
array of the priests.
x. 8 ff.-xi. Special laws for the priests.
Animals clean and unclean.
xii. 2 ff. xilL xlv. Ceremonial unclean-
nose: leprosy.
xvl. 1-17. The day of Atonement
xvi. The fast on the day of Atonement
and the scape-goat.
xx. 7 ff. Consecration.
xxl. 10. The High Priest.
xxiv. 1-9. The lamps, the shewbread, &c
xxiv. 10-14. The blasphemer.
xxv. Soles and redemptions.
xxvi. 3 ff. The blessings of obedience.
In the interpretation of Leviticus Origen natu-
rally dwells on the obvious moral and spiritual
antitypes of the Mosaic ordinances. Not unfre-
quently the use which he makes of them is im-
pressive and ingenious. Such, for instance, is
his view of man's soul and body, as the deposit
which he owes to God (Lev. vi. 4, Horn. iv. 3) ;
of the office of the Christian priest foreshadowed
in that of the Jewish priest (Lev. vii. 28 ff., Horn.
T. 12) ; of the priesthood of believers (Lev. viii.
7 ff., Horn. vi. 5 ; comp. Horn. ix. 9) ; of the
Saviour's sorrow (Lev. x. 9 coll. Matt. xxvi. 9,
OEIGENES
Horn. Tii. 2), of the purification by fire (Lev.
xvi. 12, Horn. ix. 7). Throughout Christ appears
as the one Sacrifice for the world, and the one
Priest {Horn. i. 2 ; iv. 8 ; v. 3 ; ix. 2 ; xii.), though
elsewhere He is said to join with Himself apostles
and martyrs {Horn, in Sum. x. 2).
Numders.
No mention is made of" Books " on Numbers,
unless the reference in Prol. in Cant. p. 316, &c.
is to a commentary and not to a lost Homily.
(Twenty-eight Homilies.— H. C.)
Of Notes and Homilies (comp. Horn, m Jer.
xii. § 3) the following remain :
Greek.
(1) Notes from Catenae. Small Fragment of
Horn. xiii.
Delarne, it 270-274 ; 321.
Lonunatxsch, x. 1-8 j 156 note.
(2) Additional notes.
Galland, I.e. 7f.
Latin.
Twenty-eight Homilies, translated by Rnfinus.*
Delarne, 11. 275-386.
tammatzsch, x. 9-370.
The Homilies follow the whole course of the
narrative :
I. Num.
ii. „
111. „
lv. „
v. „
vi. „
vii. „
viii. „
xL „
xii. „
xili. „
xlv. „
XV. „
xvi. „
xvii. „
xviU. „
xix. „
XX. „
xxl. „
xxil.
xxili. „
1. 1-3. The Idea of " numbering."
il.lt The ordering of the tribes.
111. 11 ff. The separation of the Levites.
ill. 39. The number of the Levites.
iv. 18 f., 47. The work of the Levites.
xi. 24 ff., xii. 2. The seventy elders. The
Ethiopian wife of Moses,
xii. 6 ff. The leprosy of Miriam.
xlv. 8 ff. The report of the spies and the
mnrmurings of the people,
xvl., xvii. The sedition of Koran. Aaron's
rod.
xviii. 1 ff. The vicarious office of the
priests,
xviii. Of the first-fruits,
xxl. 16 ff. The song of the well,
xxl. 24 ff, xxli. The defeat of Slhon and
Og. Balaam and the ass.
xxli. Balaam.
xxili. 1-10. The first prophecy of Balaam,
xxiil. 11-24. The second prophecy,
xxili. 27-xxlv. 9. The third prophecy,
xxiv. 10-19. The fourth prophecy,
xxiv. 20-24. The fifth prophecy.
xxv. The sin with Baol-peor.
xxvi. The second numbering of the
people,
xxvli. 1 ff. The daughters of Zelopbchad.
Provision for Moses' successor,
xxviil. On the various Festivals.
p Cassiodorus (Instf*. 1) mentions thirty, but this
is probably only a difference of numbering. Several
Homilies might be properly divided: t.g. lx. xllL,
xxii. The translation of the Homilies (twenty-eight)
on Numbers was among the latest works of Rufimu.
It was made In the year of his death (410), after the
desolation of Rnegium by Alarlc, and while Sicily was
ktlll threatened by the Goths (Kof. PnHog.). Rufinus
incorporated in his translation the notes (Ezxxrpta)
which he found (l.c.) In offering it to Ursadus, at
whose request It was undertaken, be proposes, if bis
health allows, to translate the Homilies on Deuteronomy,
which alone remained of Orlgen's writinirs on the Penta-
uch. This design however was hindered by his death.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
OKIGENES
xxiv. Num. xxx. On various offerings.
xxv. „ xxxi. The vengeance on the Mldianites.
xxvi. „ xxxi. 48 ff., xxxli. Differenced among
the people.
xxvU. „ zxxlii. Stages In the people's Journey-
ings.
xxvuL. „ xxxiv. The borders of the land.
One main idea is prominent throughout. The
struggles of the Israelites on the way to Canaan
are the image of the struggles of the Christian.
The entrance on the Promised Land foreshadows
the entrance on the heavenly realm (Hum. vii. 5).
The future world will even, in Origen's judg-
ment, offer differences of race and position cor-
responding to those of the tribes of Israel and
the nations among whom they moved (Horn. i.3 ;
ii. 1 ; xi. 5 ; xxriii. 4). The interpretation of
the record of the stations (Horn, xxvii.) is a very
good example of the way in which he finds a
meaning in the minutest details of the history.
Of wider interest are his remarks on man's
spiritual conflict (Bom. vii. 6), on the wounds
of sin (Horn. viii. 1), on advance in wisdom
(Horn. xrii. 4), on the festivals of heaven (Horn.
xxiii. 11), on self-dedication (Horn. xxiv. 2), on
the stains of battle (Horn, xxv. 6).
Deuterosomy.
Cassiodoms (tie Instit. 1) mention's four Homi-
lies of Origen on Deuteronomy (in quibus est
minuta nimis et subtilis expositio), and there
can be no doubt that it was these (oratiuncutae)
Rufinus proposed to translate if his health had
been restored. Origen speaks of the interpreta-
tion of Deuteronomy as a work still future in
the latest book of his commentary on St. John
(n Joh. Tom. xxxii. § 11). On the other hand
he refers to his discussion of Deut. iv. 17 in his
homilies on St. Luke (Horn. viii.}.
(Thirteen Homilies. — H. C.)
The scanty remains are :
(1) Notes from Catenae.
Delarue, U. 384-393.
Lommatach, x. 371-382.
(2) Additional notes.
6alland,I.c.8-14.
One interesting note at least among those
which have been collected from Catenae appears
to be a fragment of a homily (in Deut. viii. 7).
It is probable (Hier. Ep. 84, 7) that consider-
able fragments of Origen's comments on the Pen-
tateuch are contained in Ambrose's treatise on
the Hexaemeron, but the treatise has not yet been
critically examined.
ii. Joshtja-Second Kings.
Origen appears to have treated these historical
books in homilies only, or perhaps in detached
notes also.
(Twenty-six Homilies on Joshua. — H. C)
There remain of the several books :
Joshua.
(1) Fragm. of Horn, xx.
Hwt,l. 28ff.
Delarue, U. 442 1
(2) Notes from Catenae.
DeUrne, 11. 393-6.
(3) Additional notes.
Galland, I. c. 14 £
(1) and (2) are given by Lommstncb, xi. 167 ff.
1-ias, 170-214.
OEIGENE8
107
Latin.
Twenty-six Homilies, translated by Rufinus.
Delarue, II. 397-157.
Lommatzsch, xl. 6-214.
The homilies on Joshua belong to the latest
period of Origen's life. They were delivered
after the homilies on Jeremiah (Horn. xiii. 3),
and the reference to a systematic persecution in
Horn. ix. 10 seems to point to that of Decius 250.
In this case the Latin translator Rufinus appears,
from the language of his preface, to have ad-
hered faithfully to the texts before him. (Comp.
Peror. Ep. ad Rom. : quae in Jesu Naue scrip-
simus simpliciter expressimus ut invenimus.)
Perhaps for this reason these homilies offer the
most attractive specimen of Origen's popular
interpretation. The parallel between the leader
of the Old Church and the Leader of the New
is drawn with great ingenuity and care. The
spiritual interpretation of the conquest of Canaan,
as an image of the Christian life, never flags.
Fact after fact is made contributory to the
fulness of the idea; and the reader is forced
to acknowledge that the fortunes of Israel can
at least speak to us with an intelligible voice.
Rufinus himself may have felt the peculiar charm
of the book, for he selected it for translation in
answer to a general request of Chromatius to
render something from Greek literature for the
edification of the church.
The homilies cover the whole narrative up to
the settling of the land (c. xxii.) :
1. Introductory.
II. Josh. 1. 1 ff. The charge to Joshua.
III. » L 16 ff., U. The preparation.
Iv. „ 111. The passage of Jordan.
v. „ iv.-v. 9. The renewal of the Covenant.
vL „ v. 10 ff. The Passover at Qllgal j and the
divine vision.
vii. „ vi. The capture of Jericho.
vUL „ vii.-vlli. 29. The failure before Ai and
Its capture,
be „ Till. 30 ff. The alter In Ebal, and the
blessings and cursings.
x. „ tx. The craft of tin Gibeonites.
xi. „ x. The battle or Beth-boron,
xii. The wpiritnal Interpretation generally,
xlll. Josh. x. 28 ff. The taking of Llbnah, tx.
xlv. „ xi. 1 ff. The conquest of Jabin.
xv. „ xi. 9 ff. Vengeance on the enemies of the
Lord.
xvL „ xlll. 1. Joshua at the close of life,
xvilt „ xlll. 14. The Levites without earthly
Inheritance.
xvili. „ xlv. 6ff. The request of Caleb,
xix. „ xv. 1. The borders of Judah.
xx. „ xv. 13 ff. Caleb and his daughter.
xxi. „ xv. 63. The Jebusites unconqnered.
xxii. „ xvi. 10. Ephraim and the Canaan! tea
xxiii. „ xvlii. 8. Distribution by lot.
xxiv. „ xlx. 47 (LXX) ff. The remaining Amor-
ites. The portion of Joshua.
xxv. „ xxi. 2 ff. The cities of the Levites.
xxvL „ xxL 42 (LXX), xxii. 11 ff. The burying
of the stone knives and the altar of the
trans-Jordanic tribes.
Among other passages of special interest may
be mentioned those on the help which we gain
from the old fathers (Horn. iii. 1); the broad
parallel between the Christian life and the history
of the Exodus (Horn. iv. 1) ; the Christian realis-
ing Christ's victory (Horn. vii. 2); growing
wisdom (Horn. xii. 2).
(Nine Homilies on Judges : eight in Pascliae. —
H.C.)
Digitized by
Google
108
OBIGENE3
Judges.
Greek.
(1) Notes from Catenae.
Delarue, H. 457 t.
Lommatzscb, xl. 216 1
(2) Additional note*.
Galland, I. c. 15.
Latin.
Nine Homilies, translated by Rufinca.
Delarue, II. 468-478.
Lommattacb, xl. 217-234.
Ruth.
Greek,
A note on i. 4.
Delarae, ii. 478.
Lommatzscb, xL 284.
The Homilies on Judges contain a reference to
Homilies on Joshua (Horn. iii. § 3), but Origen
may have treated the book more than once.
Ilulinus translated them, as he says, literally as
he found them (Peror. Ep. ad Eom.% They arc
of much less interest than those on Joshua, and
deal with the following subjects :
1. Jud. li. T. The Israelites serving the Lord.
ii.
f1
11. 8 ff. Tbe death or Joshua.
111.
It
til. 8 ff., 12 ff. Othniel and Ehud.
hr.
tt
til. 31, iv. 1 ff. Sbamgar, Jabln, Slsera.
T.
„
lv. 4 ft*. Deborah, Barak, Jael.
Vi.
»»
v. The song of Deborah.
Vli.
If
vl. 1 ff. The oppression of MIdian.
Till.
(I
vi. 33 ff. Gideon.
ix.
»
vli. The victory of Gideon.
A passage on martyrdom— tbe baptism of
blood — is worthy of notice (Horn, vii. 2). In
another passage {Horn. ix. 1) Origen seems to
refer to the persecution of Maiiminus, which was
but lately ended.
Fibst and Second Samuel, First and Second
Kings (First to Fourth Kings).
Greek.
(Four Homilies on 1 Kings. — H. 0.)
(1) Horn, on 1 Sam. xxviii. (On the Witch of
Eiutor).
Huot, 1. 28-37.
Delarue, 11. 490-488.
(2) Notes from Catenae and Fragment!.
Delarue, 11. 478-81.
(3) Additional notes.
Galland, l.e. 18-24.
(1) and (2) are given In Lommatzscb, xL 317-332,
286-288.
Latin.
Homily on 1 Sam. i. ii. (Be Helchana et Fe-
nenna), delivered at Jerusalem (§ 1 : nolite illud
in nobis requirere quod in papa Alexandre
habetis). The translator is not known.
Delarue, U. 481-489.
Lommatzscb, xl. 289-316.
The remains of Origen's writings on the
later historical books are very slight. Origen
himself refers (Horn, on Josh. iii. § 4) to a
Homily on Solomon's Judgment (1 Kings iii.) ;
and in the time of Cassiodorus there were, in
addition to the two extant Homilies, four Homi-
lies on 1 Sam., one on 2 Sam., one on 2 Chron.
(Instit. 2), and "two on the book of Ezra,
OBIGENE8
which were translated into Latin by Bellator "
(Instit. 6). It is possible that at least the two
last may yet be found.
The Homily on the witch of Endor piovoked
violent attacks. In this Origen maintained, in
accordance with much early Christian and
Jewish opinion, that the soul of Samuel was
truly called up from Hades. Among others
Kastathius of Antioch assailed Origen in un-
measured terms. One passage in the Latin
Homily may be specially noticed, in which unity
is set forward as the special privilege of saint*
(§4).
iii. The Hagiographa.
Job.
Origen composed many Homilies on Job-
(Eustath. Antioch. de Engastr. 391), which
were rendered freely into latin by Hilary of
Poictiers (Hier. de Vir. III. 100 ; Ep. adv. Vigil.
61, 2). The scattered Notes which remain are
not sufficient to enable us to estimate their
value. Comp. Horn, in Ezech. vi. 4 ; Hier. Ep.
ad Pammach. 57, 6 j Lib. I. c. Euf. § 2.*
(Twenty-two Homilies on Job. — H. C)
There remain :
Greek.
(1) Notes from Catenae.
Delarue, 500-610.
Lommatzsch, xl. 335-350
(2) Additional notes.
Galland, J. e. 30-64.
Mai, Clan. Avct. torn. Ix. In Procopius (many
additional passages).
Latin.
Fragment quoted from a homily of Hilary
by August. Lib. ii. c. Jul. § 27, and assumed to-
be translated from Origen.
Delarue, II. 600.
Lommatzscb, xl. 333 f.
The Psalms.
The Psalms engaged Origen's attention before
he left Alexandria. At that time he had written
commentaries on Pss. i.-xxv. (Euseb. ff. E. vi.
24). He continued and completed the book
afterwards. Jerome expressly states that he
■' left an explanation of all the Psalms in many
volumes " (Ep. cxii. § 20) ; and his extant books
contain references to his commentaries on psalms
scattered throughout the collection (comp. Hier.
Ep. xxxiv. § 1).
In addition to these detailed commentaries.
Origen illustrated the Psalter by short Notes
(" a handbook : " enchiridion ille vocabat, Auct.
ap. Hier. Tom. vii. App. 1 ), and by Homilies.
« The two works on Job printed with Origen's writ-
ings are not his. Comp. TlUemont, note 34.
' The passage is worth quoting: "Cum Origenis
Fsalterlum, quod Enchiridion Ule vocabat .... in com-
mune legereraua, slmul uterque deprehendlmus nonnulla
eum .... Intacta rellqui&se, de qulbus in alio opera ....
disputavit Igitur .... stodioee .... postul&sti nt
quaecumque mlhi dlgna mfmoria videbantnr slgnis qui-
oiisdam annotarem .... mm quod putem a me posse diet
quae Ule praeterilt, sed quod ca quae in torois vel
homiltls ipse dlsserult vel ego dlgna arbltror lections In
hunc angustum commentariolum referam." There can
be no doubt therefore that this Breviarium in Psaimu*
contains much of Origen's work and deserves considera-
tion In this respect.
Digitized by
Google
ORIGENES
The Homilies which arc preserved in Rufinus's
Latin translation belong to the latest period of
Origen's life, c 241-247 {Horn. 1 in Ps. xxxvi.
§ 2 ; Horn. 1 in Ps. iiiTii. § 1). They give a
continuous practical interpretation of the three
psalms, and are a very good example of this
style of exposition, (hie passage on the per-
manent effects of actions on the doer may be
specially noticed (Horn. ii. § 2).
The Greek fragments preserved in the Catenae
offer nnmerons close coincidences with the Latin
Homilies, and there is no reason to doubt that
they represent the general sense of Origen's com-
ments. Comp. Oman, in Sam. iv. § 1 (cum de
Psalmis per ordinem dictaremus) ; id. § 11 ;
Hon. in Jer. xv. 6.
(Notes on Psalms, in all forty-six books; and
one hundred and eighteen Homilies. — H. C.)
There remain still of writings on the Psalms :
Greek.
(1) Fragments from the Topot and Homilies.
Hue*,!- 1-61.
Delaroe, U. 525-629, 532, 565-572.
(2) Additional fragments and notes from
Catenae.
Dclarue, ti. 513-424, 529-849.
(3) Additional notes.
Galland, J. c 64-13. Comp. Dclarue, II. Praef-
p.iL
(1) and (2) are given In Lommatzsch, xi. 351-458;
xli. xliL 1-155, with an additional fragment from
Easeb. B. E. vi. 38.
Latin.
Nine Homilies on Pss. xxxvi. xxxvii. xxxviii.
(translated by Rnfinus).
Dehrue, U. 655-519, 680-489, 691-700.
Lommatxscb, xH. 151-231, 231-271, 274-306.
Proverbs.
(Three Books ; seven Homilies ; one book of
questions. — H. C.)
On the book of Proverbs there remain :
Greek.
(1) Fragments.
Delaroe, Hi. 2-10.
Lommatzsch, xllL 219-234.
(2) Notes from Catenae.
Galland, I. c 25-29.
Additional notes, Mai, BO*. Nov. Patrum, vil.
Latin.
fragments.
Delaroe, ill. 1.
Lommatzsch. xlil. 217 f.
EOCLESIASTES.
(Notes ; eight Homilies. — H. C.)
Notes on iii. 3, 7, 16 f.
Galland. I.e. 30.
LAMENTATIONS.
Origen wrote commentaries on the Lamenta-
tions before 231, of which five books had come
down to the time of Eusebins (//. E. vi. 24).
The Greek notes are probably derived from
these.
(Five Books.— H. C.)
Delaroe, Hi. 321-351.
Lommatssch, xiv. 167-216.
ORIGENES
109
Canticles.
It was natural that the book of Canticles
should occupy Origen early. He wrote a small
volume upon it, of which a fragment remains in
the Philocalia, c. vii. At a much later time,
when he was at Athens 240, he composed five
books of a full commentary, which he afterwards
completed at Caesarea (Euseb. If. E. vi. 32).
Jerome speaks of the work with enthusiasm :
" in his other books Origen," he says, " surpassed
every one else, in this he surpassed himself"
(Prol. in Horn, in Cant.). The prologue and
part of the full commentary (to Cant. ii. 16)
were translated by Rufinus.' Jerome himself
shrank from undertaking the task, and rendered
instead two Homilies, which cover the same
ground but in a simpler form. No work of
Origen's more widely influenced later com-
mentators. He marked in it once for all the
main lines of allegorical interpretation which
they followed. The writing contains also some
passages of more general interest, as the ex-
amination of the three books of Solomon —
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles — in connexion
with the popular types of speculation (Prol.).
(Ten Books ; two Books written early ; two
Homilies.— H. C.)
There remain :
Greek.
(1) Fragments of his early work.
Huet, L 61 f.
Delaroe, ill. 11.
Lommatzsch, xlv. 232 f
(2) Extracts by Procopius.
Delaruc ill. 94-104.
Lommatzsch, xv. 91-108.
Latin.
Two Homilies (translated by Jerome).
Delaroe, Hi. 12-22.
Lommatzsch, xiv. 235-278.
Prologue and four books on Canticles, trans*
lated by Rufinus.
Delarne, 111. 26-94.
Lommatzscb, xiv. 281-437 1 xv. 1-90.
iv. The Prophets.
Isaiah.
Origen interpreted Isaiah in each of the three
forms which he used in Books (r6fioi), in Notes,
and in Homilies. Thirty books of his Commen-
taries remained when Eusebius wrote his History
extending to c. xxx. 6 (Euseb. H. E. vi. 32).
Some of these had already perished in the time
of Jerome, who speaks of the work as abounding
in allegories and interpretation of names (Prol.
in Lib. v. in Es. : liberis allegoriae spatiis eva-
gatur et interpretatis nominibus singulorum
ingenium suum facit ecclesiae sacramenta).
Besides these Commentaries Jerome was ac-
quainted with twenty-five Homilies and Notes.
(Thirty-six Books ; thirty-six books of notes (?) ;
thirty-two Homilies.— H. C.)
■ This appears to be the real meaning of what Cas-
slodorus says, De Div. Inttit. J 6, though be apparently
describes Kufinus' work as only an amplified translation
of tbe same original as Jerome rendered: quos item
Rnfinus. . .adjecus qulbnsdam locls usque ad lllud prae-
ceptum quod alt capile nobis... (tt. 16) trlbus libris
latins exposuit.
Digitized by
Google
110
OEIGENES
All that at present remains of these Commen-
taries and Homilies is :
Latin.
Two fragments of the " Books."
Mine Homilies.
Delarue, Ui. 105-124.
Lommatzsch, xill. 235-301.
The last of the Homilies is imperfect. They
were translated by Jerome, who is accused by
Rufinus of having modified the original text for
dogmatic purposes.
The Homilies were addressed to a popular
audience, including catechumens, but they want
the ease of the latest discourses, and follow no
exact order.
1. Is. vl. 1-7. The call or the prophet
M. „ vil. 10-18. Tho virgin's son.
111. „ iv. 1. The seven women.
lv. „ vl. 1-7. The vision of God.
v. „ xll. 2; vl. Iff.
vl. „ vl. 8 ft. The mission of the prophet •
vil. „ vlll. 18 ff. The prophet and his children.
vilL „ x. 10-13.
Ix. „ vl.8-vll.il. (A fragment.)
One passage of characteristic excellence may
be mentioned {Horn. vi. 4), in which Origen
describes the "greater works" of Christ's
disciples.
Jeremiah.
Cassiodorns enumerates forty-five homilies of
Origen on Jeremiah " in Attic style " (de Instit.
div. litt. § 3). Of these Jerome translated four-
teen " confuso ordine " (Praef. in Horn, in Jer.
et Ezech.), which have been preserved; and
Babanus Maurus (Praef. in Jerem.), referring to
the statement of Cassiodorus, states that he
could find only fourteen homilies translated.
Of the nineteen Greek homilies twelve are iden-
tical with twelve of Jerome, so that altogether
twenty-one homilies remain. The homilies were
written in a period of tranquillity, and therefore,
in all probability, after the close of the persecu-
tion of Maximinus, c. 245 (Horn. iv. 3).
(Twenty-four Homilies.— H. C.)
There remains then altogether :
Greek.
(1) Nineteen Homilies (with Jerome's version
of twelve). Fragment of Horn, xxxix.
Huet I. 53-183.
Delarue, 111. 125-278, 285 f.
Lommatzscb, xv. 109-388 (without Jerome's
translation).
(2) Notes from Catenae.
Delarue, 111. 287-320.
Lommatisch, xv. 418-180.
Latin.
Two Homilies, translated by Jerome.
Delarue, ill. 277-288.
Lommatzscb, xv. 389-417.
The Greek homilies were first published in
1548, from a MS. in the Escurial under the
name of Cyril, which they bore in the MS., by
B. Corderius. A second MS., containing the
same Homilies, was afterwards found in the
Vatican by M. Ghisler, who published the Greek
text of the seven not translated by Jerome
(3, 5, 6, 7, 15, 18, 19) in his Commentary on
Jeremiah (1623). The various readings of this
text were added by Huat to his reprint of the
OBIGENES
text of Corderius, and they are given from htm in
later editions of Origen.'
The nineteen Greek Homilies follow the order
of the text:
I. Jer. i. 1-10. The mission of the prophet
II. „ li-2lt The degenerate vine.
111. „ ILS1. The universal goodness of God.
Iv. „ iIl.e-10. Perils of degeneracy,
v. „ 1U. 22-iv. 8. Call to repentance.
vi. „ v. 3ff. Insensibility,
vil. „ v. 18 f. Chastisement,
vlll. „ x. 12 ff. The work of God for men.
ix. „ xi. 1-10. The word of God to His people,
x. „ xi. 18-xll. 9. The apostasy of the Jews.
Christ's work.
xi. „ xll. ll-xili. U. The rejection of the Jews,
xli. „ xili. 12-17. Just Judgment,
xiii. „ xv. 5 ff. Punishment of backsliders.
xlv. „ xv. 10-19. The lot of the rejected prophet
xv. „ xv. lOff.; xvlL$. The sorrow of Christ
No hope in man.
xvi. „ xvi. 16-xvU. 1. Fishers and hunters of souls.
The record of sin.
xvii. „ xvii. 11-16. The image of the partridge.
Divine help.
xvitt. „ xvlii. 1-18; XX. 1-6. The potter. The
punishment of the impenitent The les-
son of Pashnr.
xlx. „ xx. 7-12. How God deceives. Endurance
of reproaches,
xx. (Latin.) Jer. 1. 23-29. The hammer of the earth
broken,
xxi. (Latin.) „ lt«-9. Flight from Babylon.
xxxlx. (Gk. fragm.) Jer.xllv. 22. Each word of Scrip-
ture has Its work.
For the most part the Homilies give a full
interpretation of the text, accommodating the
language of the prophet to the circumstances of
the Christian Church. But Origen's total want
of historical feeling makes itself felt perhaps
more in his treatment of this book than else-
where, for the teaching of Jeremiah is practically
unintelligible without a true sense of the tragic
crisis in which he was placed. There are how-
ever many separate passages of the Homilies of
considerable beauty, e.g. on the fruitful disci-
pline of God (Horn. iii. 2), the ever-new birth
of Christ {Horn. ix. 4), the marks of sin (Horn.
xvi. 10). Comp. Horn, m Josh. xiii. § 3.
The selected Notes probably supply the general
sense of the lost homilies on the passages to which
they refer. As far as the Homilies extend, they
contain the main substance of the Notes.
EZEKIEL.
(Twenty-nine Books ; twelve Homilies. — H.C.)
Of Origen's writings on Ezekiel there remain :
Greek.
(1) Fragments,
Huet L 200 f.
Delarue, Ui. 352 f.
Lommatzscb, xlv. 1 ff.
(2) Notes from Catenae.
Delarue, UI. 408-437.
Loinmatxsch, xlv. 179-232.
Mai, BiU. Not. Patrtm, vil.
« It is commonly said, as even the language of Huet
seems to suggest that Ghisler found only *>ven homilies.
His own account (Praef. c vil.) is quite clear that he
found twenty homilies, nineteen on Jeremiah with one
other, and that he printed the seven homilies on Jeremiah
which were not translated by Jerome. It does not appear
that either of the MSS. have been re-examlnad
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
■ OBIGENES
Latin.
Fourteen Jfomilies.
Delarue, ill. 353-40*
Lommatssch, xlv. 4-178.
Ensebius records that Origen wrote a Com-
mentary on Ezekiel in twenty-fire books, which
was finished nt Athens, c 238 (H. E. vi. 32).
Of these the notes mar contain some fragments ;
and one fragment of the twentieth book is given
in the Phtfocalia (c. xi.). The Homilies belong
to a later date. Of these (it is unknown how
many were published) Jerome translated fourteen,
preserving in his version, as he says, the simple
style of the original (Prol. in Ezech.). These
treat of the following passages :
L Enek. i. 1-16. Tbe Ant vision of Kieklel.
ii. „ xiit 2-8. The message to false prophets.
ill. „ JdiL 17-ziv. 8. The heaviness of tbe pro-
phet's charge,
ir. „ xlv. 13 f. Personal salvation of the
righteous.
T. „ xiv„ xv. 2. The Judgments of God.
vL „ xvi. 3-15. The misery of God's people in
sin.
viL „ xvi. 16-29. The abominations of false
teaching.
vHi. „ xvi. 30-33. The issues of false teaching,
ix. „ xvi. 45-52. The heinousness of pride.
x. „ xv L 52-60. The fruit of chastisement,
xi. „ xvll. 2, 3. The parable of the eagle,
xii. „ xviL 12-24. Judgments and promises,
xiii. „ xxvill. 12, 13. Corruption of blessings.
xlv. „ xllv. 2. The closed gate.
It will be seen that the Homilies cover only
a small portion of the book ; nor do they offer
many features of special interest. The passages
which speak of the responsibility of teachers
{Horn. v. 5 ; vii. 3) are perhaps the most
striking.
Daniel.
Origen commented upon the histories of
Snsanna and of Bel (Dan. Apocr. xiii. xiv.) in
the tenth book of his Miscellanies (Xrpufiarus),
and Jerome has preserved a brief abstract of bis
notes as an appendix to his commentary on
Daniel (Delaruc, i. 49 f.; Lommatzsch, xrii.,
70 ff.>
In a collection of notes on Daniel printed by
Mai (Script. Vet. Kova Coll. i. 2, Romae 1825),
I have observed two notes referred to Origen
on Dan. i. 8 ; ir. 25, bnt they might well have
been taken from homilies on other books.
TrtE Minor Prophets.
Origen wrote extensive commentaries on the
twelve minor prophets, of which twenty-fire
books remained in the time of Eusebius (H. E.
vi. 36) ; and Jerome says that he fonnd a manu-
script of them " written by the hand of Para-
phihu" which he kept "as the treasures of
Croesus " (fie Vir. III. § 75). Of the number of
these were probably the two volumes on Zech.
i.-v., the three on Malachi, and the two on
Hosea, which Jerome mentions in the prefaces
of his own commentaries on those books. The
fragment on Hosea xii., preserved in the Philo-
calia, c riii., is all that now remains.
(Two Books on Hosea (one on Ephraim) ; two
on Joel ; six on Amos ; one on Jonah ; two on
Micah ; two on Nahum ; three on Habakknk ;
two on Zephaniah ; one on Haggai ; two on
Zechariah (principio) ; two on Malachi. — H. C.)
Hosea.
Fragment.
OBIGENES
111
Hart, L 201 f.
Delarue, iiL 438 f.
Lommatzsch, xiii. 302 ft
2. Writings on the New Testament.
St. Matthew
There remain i
Greek.
(1) Fragments of To/tot i. ii. To/iot x.-xvii.
(Matt. xiii. 36-xxii. 33).
Huet, i. 203-469.
Delarue, ill. 440-820.
Lommatzsch, Hi. 1-lv. 172.
(2) Notes from Catenae.
Galland, I.e. 73-83.
(3) A large number of additional notes from
Cod. Coislm. xxiii.
Cramer, Catena, roL I, Oxford, 1840.
Latin.
(1) Fragments.
(2) An old version of the commentary on
St. Matthew, xri. 13-xxrii.
Delarue, ill 521-931.
Lommatzsch gires the Latin version from the
point where the Greek fails ; ir. 173-r. 84.
Eusebius states that Origen wrote twenty-five
Books (to>oi) on St. Matthew (H. E. vi. 36);
and Jerome, in the preface to his commentary
on St. Matthew, says that he had read that
number ; but in the prologue to his translation
of Origen's homilies on St. Lnke he speaks, ac-
cording to the common text, of " thirty-six
books " (the Corpus Christi Coll. Camb. MS. reads
twenty-six), and Rufraus again (Apci. ii. § 22) of
" twenty-six." From the proportion which the
remaining books bear to the whole gospel, the
statement of Kusebius appears to be correct.
The largest number is certainly wrong.
The commentaries seem to hare been written
c. a.d. 245-6. He refers in them to his (lost)
homilies on St. Luke (Tom. xiii. 29 : Tom. xri.
9); and to his commentaries on St. John (Tom.
xvi. 20; Comm. Ser. §§ 77, 133, John xix. 18)
and on the Romans (Tom. xrii. 32). In addition
to the " Books " Origen also wrote Homilies and
Notes (scholia) upon the Gospel (Hier. Praef. in
Hatt.y. Fragments from these may be preserred
in some of the notes from Catenae.
(Twenty-fire Books ; twenty-fire Homilies.
— H. C.)
The Greek text of the Commentaries is pre-
serred in four MSS,
L. Codec Bolmientis, in tbe Library of Trio. Coll.
Cambridge, B. 8, 10, quoted by Delarue as two
MSS. : collated by Bentley, in a copy of Huet,
In tbe same library, F. 7, 13."
2. Codex Begius, a Paris MS., used by Huet
3. Codex Vaticanus 597, used by Delarue.
4. Codex Venetut 43, examined partially by Peter-
maun for Lommatzsch.
To these may be added a copy of a MS. made
by Tarinus and nsed by Delarue.
■ Huet seems to insinuate some doubts as to Thorn-
dike's title to the MS. The inscription In the MS. is
quite definite : " Hie est ille codex Holmlensis quern
totles laudat Dan. Huetlus in snls Orlgenianls. (Then
apparently In another hand.) Donavit Herberto Thorn-
dlcio Isaacus Tosslus." A MS. of the Dialoguu againtt
the Mareimita In the same collection (B. 9. 110) bears
an inscription In the same band: * Dealt Herberto
Thorndlclo cl. v. Is. Voseius."
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
112
OEIGENE8
All the MSS. are from one archetype (see
lacunae, xii. 20, 42 ; xiii. 28 ; xvii. 29, 31).
The Latin text of the cditio princcps (Merlin)
represents a good MS. Delarue in the Appendix
in toI. iv. pp. 388 ff. has given a collation of two
MSS., one of the 8th and the other of the 12th
century, which Lommatzsch has incorporated
in his edition ; and there is a very fine MS.
(Saec. xii.) in the British Museum (Adi. 26,761).
The Latin MSS. like the Greek, seem to re-
present a single archetype.
The work was probably addressed to Am-
brosius. Personal addresses occur in it not un-
frequently (iiv. 24, av {nriioats Sc ; xv. 5 ;
xvi. 7, § 19).
The Cod. Holm, gives the tenth and eleventh
books under one heading — ix ray tls to K. M.
(bay. T. id (the later books are headed To/in i/S,
&c), and the same heading is found in other
authorities. The commentary however does not
seem to be a mere scries of extracts ; and the old
Latin version is not more remote from the text
than other Latin versions of Origen's works in
which the translators introduced from time to
time notes from other parts of his works.
The tenth book gives a continuous exposition
of Matt. xiii. 36-xiv. 15. The most interesting
passages are those in which Origen discusses
characteristically the types of spiritual sickness
(c. 24) ; and the doubtful question as to " the
brethren of the Lord " (c. 17). In the latter
place he gives his own opinion, on internal
grounds, in favour of the belief in the perpetual
virginity of the mother of the Lord. In the
account of Herod's banquet he has preserved de-
finitely the fact, that " the daughter of Herodias "
bore the same name as her mother (c. 22), in
accordance with the true reading in Mark vi. 22
(■njs Bvyarpbs earrov 'HpipSt&Sos); but he
strangely supposes that the power of life and
death was taken away from Herod in conse-
quence of the execution of the Baptist (c. 21).
The eleventh book (c. xiv. 15-xv. 32) contains
several pieces of considerable interest on the
discipline of temptation (c. 6), on Corban (c. 9),
on the conception of things unclean (c. 12), on
the healing spirit in the Church (c. 18), and
perhaps, above all, that on the Eucharist (c. 14),
which is of primary importance for the under-
standing of Origen's view.
The most important passages in the twelfth
book which gives the commentary on c. xvi. 1-
xvii. 9, are those which treat of the confession
and blessing of St. Peter (pc. 10 ff.), and of the
Transfiguration (cc. 37 ff.). In the former he
regards St. Peter as the type of the true believer.
All believers, as they are Christians, are Peters
also (c. 11 : Trapt&wfioi ireroas TdWes ol lu/rqral
Xpurrov. • .Xf/iarov p<Ai) trrts Tapdyv/ioi ixpv-
fMTtffav Xpiffrtavoij "wirpos 8« •wirpoi). His
ignorance of the Hebrew idiom leads him, like
other early commentators, to refer the " binding
and loosing " to sins (c. 14).
The thirteenth book (c. xvii. 10-xviii. 18) opens
with an argument against transmigration. Later
on there is an interesting discussion of the in-
fluence of the planets upon men (c. 6). Other
characteristic passages deal with the various
circumstances under which the Lord healed the
•ick (c. 3), the rule for avoiding offences (c. 24),
and especially the doctrine of guardian angels
<oo.26f.). * S
OBIGENES
The fourteenth book (c. xviii. 19-xix. 11) con-
tains a characteristic examination of the senses
in which the "two or three " in Matt, xviii. 2l>
may be understood (cc. 1 ff.) ; and a somewhar.
detailed discussion of points connected with mar-
riage (cc. 16 ff. ; cc. 23 ff).
The fifteenth book (xix. 12-xx. 16) has several
pieces of more than usual interest : the investi-
gation of the meaning of Matt. xix. 12 f. with
(as it appears) clear reference to his own early
error (c. 2); a fine passage on the goodness
of God even in His chastisements (c 11); and
some remarkable interpretations of the five send-
ings of labourers to the vineyard (Matt. xx. 1 ff.),
in one of which he likens St. Paul to one who
had wrought as an apo»t!e in one hour more
perhaps than all those before him (c. 35).
The sixteenth book (xx. 17-xxi. 22) gives
some striking pictures of the darker side of
Christian society, of the growing pride of the
hierarchy, of the faults of church officers, of the
separation between clergy and laity (cc. 8, 22, 25).
In discussing the healing of Bartimaeus Origen
holds that a choice must be made between sup-
posing that the three evangelists have related
three incidents, if the literal record is to be
maintained, or that they relate one and the same
spiritual fact in different words (c. 12).
The seventeenth book (xii. 23-xxii. 33) con-
tains interpretations of the parables of the two
sons (c. 4), of the vineyard (6 ff.), of the mar-
riage feast (15 ff.), which are good examples
of Origen's method ; and his explanations of the
questions of the Herodians (cc. 26 ff.) and the
Sadducees (c. 33) are of interest.
The old Latin translation continues the com-
mentary to Matt, xxvii. 63. As passages in it
of chief interest may be noticed : the application
of the woes (Matt, xxiii. 1 ff.), §§ 9-25 ; the
legend of the death of Zachariah the father of
the Baptist, § 25 ; the danger of false opinions,
§ 33 ; the gathering of the saints, § 51 ; the
limitation of the knowledge of the Son (Matt,
xxiv. 36), § 55 ; the administration of the re-
venues of the church, § 61 ; the duty of using
all that is lent to us, § 66 ; the eternal fire, im-
material, § 72 ; the supposition of three anoint-
ings of the Lord's feet, § 77 ; the passover of the
Jews and of the Lord, § 79 ; on the Body and
Blood of Christ, § 85 ; the lesson of the Agony,
§ 91 ; tradition of the different appearance of
the Lord to men of different powers of vision,
§ 100 ; the reading Jesus Barabbas to be rejected,
§ 121 ; tradition as to the grave of Adam on
Calvary, § 126 ; on the darkness at the cruci-
fixion, § 134.
St. Mark.
A Latin commentary attributed to Victor of
Antioch, published at Ingoldstadt in 1580, is said
to contain quotations from Origen on cc i. xiv.
(Ceillier, p. 635). These, if the reference is cor-
rect, may have been taken from other parts of
his writings.
(Fifteen Books ; Thirty-nine Homilies. — H. C.)
St. Luke.
There remain of Origen's writings on St.
Luke:
Qreek.
(1) Fragments.
DeUrue, iii. 979-933.
Lommatzscb, v. 237-244*
Digitized by
Google
0KIGENE8
OEIGENES
113
(2) Notes from s Venice MS. (xxviii.)
Gallaod, L «. 83-109.
(3) Additional notes, Mai, Class. Auct. torn. z.
p. 474 ff.»
(4) Additional notes from Cod. Coislin. xxiii.
Cramer, Catena, IL, Oxford, 1SU1.
Latm.
Thirty-nine Homilies.
Delarue, III. 932-679.
Lommatzscb, t. 85-236.
Origen wrote four Books on St. Luke (Hier.
Prol. ad Horn.) from which the detached notes
were probably taken.
There is a MS. of the Homilies of sec viii.-
ii., written in Lombardic characters, in the
library of Corpus Christ! College, Cambridge
(So. cccxxxiv.), which is of the highest im-
portance. This gives in the prologue " viginti
sei tomos in Matthaeum . . . triginta duos in
Johannetn." It has lost one leaf containing the
end of Horn, i. and the beginning of Horn, ii.
The short Homilies on St. Luke, an early work
of Origen, were translated by Jerome ; and in
spite of the objections of Daille (De Soriptis
quae sub Dm. Areop. et Ign. nomine feruntur,
pp. 439 f.% which were answered by Pearson
(TineHc Ignat. pars i. c 7), they appear to be
certainly genuine, and abound in characteristic
thoughts.
They deal with the following passages :
I. Luke 1. 1-3. The four canonical gospels.
U. „ 1.6. The righteousness of Zacharlah and
Elizabeth.
lit „ L 11. The appearance of the angel to
Zacharlah.
iv. „ L 13-17a. The angelic message to Za-
charlah.
v. „ L22. The dumbness of Zacharlah.
vi. „ I. 24-32*. The faith of the Vlrgtu.
Til. „ L 38-46. Mary and Elizabeth,
vtii. „ 1.46-61*. The Magnificat,
lx. „ L 56-64. The birth of the Baptist
z. „ 1.67-76. The Bcnedictus.
xi. „ I. 8041. 2. The growth of John.
xlL ,. IL 8-10. The angel's message to the
shepherds.
xHI. „ IL 13-16. The angelic hymn,
xlv. „ 11. 21-24. The Circumcision and Puri-
fication.
xv. „ II. 25 f. Simeon.
xvL m ILS3f. The prophecy of Simeon.
xttL „ It 33-36. The prophecy of Simeon:
Anna,
nill. „ II. 40-40. The finding In the temple,
xix. „ IL 40-46. Jesus In the temple,
xx. „ 11.49-61. The subjection of Jesus,
xxi. n HL 1-4. The mission of John,
xxli. „ 1U- 6-8. The call of John to repentance,
xxiii. „ 111. 9-12. The call to different classes :
the publicans.
xxrr. „ UL16. The baptisms of water and fire.
xxv. „ lit 16. Mistaken devotion.
xxvi. „ UL 17. Divine sifting.
xxvIL „ HI. 18. The work of John : the descent
of the Spirit.
xxvUL „ UL 23 IT. The genealogies.
• Mat adds m a note : " Plum deincepe ex Origenls
script!* daturus nunc scbollorum eras in Lucam gustum
brevrm exhibeo," a promise which be partially fulfilled
hr publishing the notes en Proverbs In BM. Nina Pa-
frast, vU. Bom**, 1854.
CHRIST. BIOGB. — VOL IT.
xxix.
XXX.
xxxi.
xxxll.
xxxlil.
xxxiv.
XXXV.
XXXVl.
xxxvil.
xxxvlil.
xxxix.
Luke lv. 1-4. The first temptation.
„ Iv. 6-8. The second temptation.
„ tv. 9-12. The third temptation.
Jesus at Nazareth.
Jesus at Nazareth.
The good Samaritan.
Make peace with tultie adv
iv. 14-20.
Iv. 23-27.
X. 25-37.
Xli. 68 f.
sary.
xvii. 33-21 (order Inverted). The king
dom of Ood within.
xlx. 29 ff. The ass's colt.
xlx. 41-45. Cleansing the temple.
xx. 27 ff., 20 ff. (order Inverted). Ques-
tions of Ssddocees and Herodlans.
The passages of greatest interest are those
which deal with the four canonical gospels
{Horn. IX spiritual manifestations {Horn, 3), the
nobility and triumph of faith (Horn. 7), spiritual
growth (Bom. 11), shepherds of churches and
nations (Horn. 12), spiritual and risible co-rulers
of Churches (Horn. 13X Infant Baptism (Bom.
14), second marriages (Bom. 17), Baptism by
fire (Bom. 24), man as the object of a spiritual
conflict (Bom. 35).
Besides these Homilies Origen wrote other
Homilies upon the gospel which are now lost.
References to them are found m Matt. torn. xiii.
29 ; xvi. 9 ; in Joh. torn, xxxii. 2
St. John.
( Thirty-two Books ; some notes. — H. C.)
The remains of the Commentary on St. John
are in many respects the most important of
Origen's exegetical writings. There are left :
ToV«' i- ii- (>v- t- small fragments), vi. x. xiii.
xix. (nearly entire), xx. xxviii. xxxii.
Huet, II. 1-422 « (with Ferrarlus's version).
» Huet has retained the arbitrary division of the re-
mains of the Commentary into thirty-two books which is
given In the Venice MS. followed by Ferrarlus. As Huet
gives no sections, it may be convenient for reference to
give the beginulng of these "books."
Huet. Delarue.
Tom. I. Tom. I.
„ U. ,. HI.
„ III. „ 11.10.
„ lv. „ 11.20.
„ V. „ IL25.
„ vL „ vLl.
„ vii. „ vl.a.
„ vilL „ vi.15.
„ lx. „ vi. 30.
„ X. » x.1.
„ xi. „ X. 15.
„ xlL „ X. 20.
„ xUL „ xiii. 1.
„ xiv. „ xiii. 17.
„ XV. „ xiii. 31.
„ xvL „ xiii. 43.
„ xvii. „ xiii. 60.
„ xvilL „ xiii. 57.
„ xlx. „ xix.
„ XX. „ XX. 1.
„ xxi. „ xx. 7.
„ xxtL „ xx. 14.
„ xxiii. „ XX. 19.
„ xxlv. „ XX. 21.
„ xxv. „ XX. 24.
„ xxvt „ xx. 28.
„ xxvlt. „ XX. 31.
„ xxvUL „ xxviii. L
„ xxix. „ xxviii. 6. '
„ xxx. „ xxviii. 12,
„ xxxL „ xxviii. 17.
„ xxxlL „ xxxii.
Digitized by
Google
114 OBIGENES
Delarue, iv. 1-46* (with Ferrarlus' version).
Lommatsach, L U.
These remains extend over the following por-
tions of the gospel :
Tom. 1. John 1. la.
„ 11. „ Llb-Ta,
„ Tl. „ 1. 19-29.
» X. „ U.1S-M.
„ sill. „ It. 13-44.
„ xix. (port) „ viil. 19-24.
, SI. „ Till. 37-52.
„ Xxviil. „ XL 39-57.
„ xxxli. „ xlM.2-33.
The fragment of torn. iv. treats of the rude
style of the apostolic writers ; and those of torn.
r. contain an interesting apology for the length
of his own work, and a comparison of the son-
ship of Christ with that of believers.
The continuous text depends upon fonr MSS. :
1. Cod. Tenet. 8. Mud, xllll, written in 1374, fol-
lowed by Ferrarlus. Comp. Fetermaun, ap.
Lommatxacb, 111. Praef. p. Ix.
2. Ood. Regiut, Paris, followed by Perlonius, and
used by Huet.
3. Cod. Bodleicmut, HlsceU. 58, sacc. xvll., used by
Delarue. Of this there is a collation by Bentley,
In a copy of Huet, In the library of Trinity
College Cambridge, with some emendations, and
a transcript, with conjectural emendations, by
H. Thomdlke, in the same library, B. », 11.
It seems likely that this MS. was one of the
transcripts made for Tarinus (Delarue, Pratf.
$ vil.). The published collations are most im-
perfect.
4. Cod. Barberinut, used by Delarue.
All are derived from one archetype, and have
many lacunae. The text is consequently full of
errors, which editors have done little to remove.
A series of conjectures on book ii. is given in a
Programm by Dr. J. L. Jacobi (Hales, 1878), and
it is to be hoped that he will continue a work
which he has begun happily.'
The commentary on St. John was undertaken
at the request of Ambrosius (in Joh. torn. i.
§§ 3, 6), and was " the first-fruits of his labours
at Alexandria " (id. § 4). It marks an epoch
in theological literature and in theological
thought. Perhaps the earlier work of Hera-
cleon [Hekacleon] may have suggested the idea,
but Origen implies that the Gospel of St. John,
by its essential character, claimed his first efforts
as an interpreter. The first five books, extend-
ing to John i. 18, were written at Alexandria
{torn. vi. § 1), and part, in all probability,
before 228, while Origen was still a layman.
The work was resumed afterwards at Caesaraea
{torn. vi. § 1), and continued till after the per-
secution of Maximums, 235-8 (Euseb. H. E. vi.
28), but it does not appear that it was ever
completed. The last book (torn, xxxii.) deals
with John xiii. 2-33, and contains no such promise
of a future continuation as is found in some of
the other books. On the contrary Origen speaks
at the beginning with doubt as to the fulfilment
of his purpose of an explanation of the whole
gospel (§ 1: TdWcpov 0oi\erai rbv T)nav voir
T(\{<rat. . .tl (/. 1j) fffi, a&rbs tor tlSeln 6 8tis).
J One conjecture of Bentley's In Book 1L Is of great
excellence : y 7 »./., km ti to xupis avrov ov ytv&iitvw
iuv iv Si ovfie'irore. He reads also, $ 13 into ., roL fivo i v,
as Indeed every one must read, though the edition and
MSS- give Jr.
OBIGENES
In the time of Eusebius twenty-two books re-
mained of all that Origen had written " on the
whole gospel ;" and Jerome (Praef. in Luc.), ac-
cording to the MSS., speaks of " thirty-four " or
" thirty-nine " books in all, though the reading
is commonly altered on the authority of Rufinus
(Huet, Orig. iii. 2, 7) to " thirty-two." Rufinus
speaks of thirty-two books only (Apol. ii. § 22),
and it is probable that the work ceased where it
now ends. The commentary on the whole gospel
would have extended to fifty books at least, and
it is most unlikely that every trace of the later
books would have been lost by the time of
Eufinus if they had been published. The lan-
guage of Eusebius (I. c), on the other hand, it
too vague to allow any certain conclusion to be
drawn from it,*
The first book deals mainly with the funda-
mental conceptions of "the gospel" (§§ 1-15),
and of " the beginning " (§§ 16-22), and of " the
Logo* " (§§ 19-42). The gospels are the first-
fruits (ItrapxA) °f the Scripture, the gospel of
St. John is the firstfruits of the gospels (§ 6). As
the law had a shadow of the future, so too has
the gospel : spiritual truths underlie historical
truths (§ 9). The gospel in the widest sense is
" for the whole world," not for our earth only,
but for the universal system of the heavens and
earth (§ 15).
The discussion of the title Logos lays open a
critical stage in the history of Christian thought.
In what sense, it is asked, is the Saviour called
the Logos ? It had come to be a common opinion
" that Christ was as it were only a ' word ' of God "
(§ 23). To meet this view Origen refers to other
titles, Light, Resurrection, Way, Truth, &c.
(§§ 24—41), and following the analogy of these
he comes to the conclusion, that as we arc
illuminated by Christ as the Light, and quickened
by Him as the Resurrection, so we are made
divinely rational by Him as the Logos, i.e. Reason
(§ 42). By this method he preserves the per-
sonality of the Lord under the title of Logos,
which expresses one aspect of His being and not
His being itself (as a word). At the same time
he recognises that Christ may also be called the
Logos (Word) of God as giving expression to His
will.
In the second book Origen continues his dis-
cussion of the meaning of the Logos, distinguish-
ing, in a remarkable passage (§ 2), God and
Reason taken absolutely (o 8t£s, 6 \6yos) from
God and Reason used as predicates (8e6s, \i-ybs).
" The Father is the foundation of Deity, the Son
of reason " (§ 3). Afterwards he discusses the
sense of the words "came into being through
him (Si' ufrroO)," and the relation of the Holy
Spirit to the Son (§ 6) ; and further, what
"all things," and what that is which is called
"nothing (i.e. evil) which became without
Him but is not (§ 7). The conceptions of life
and light, of darkness and death, are then
examined (§§ 11 ff.). In treating of the mission of
John (§§ 24 ff.) Origen questions whether he may
not have been an angel who sought to minister
on earth to his Lord (§ 25) ; and characterU-
* It must however be added that in the note on Vast,
xxvll. 44, In Comm. ter. in Matt, y 133, Origen says :
** apad Johannen stent potnimos exposnlmtu de dnobua
latronlbus." The reference may be to some separate com-
ment.
Digitized by
Google
ORIGENE8
tically remarks that he was "the roice" pre-
ceding " the Word " (§ 26). Perhaps it is not
less characteristic that he blames those who,
like Heraeleon (torn. vi. § 2), hold that John i.
16-18 are the words of the evangelist and not of
the Baptist.
The sixth book, as has been already noticed,
marks a new beginning. In this, alter describing
with calm dignity the circumstances which had
interrupted his work, he examines in detail John
i 19-29. The question, Art thou Eliot f leads
to a remarkable discussion on the pre-existence
of souls, and the entrance of the soul into the
body, " a vast and difficult subject," which he
reserves for special investigation (§ 7). The
words of the Baptist (i. 26) give occasion for a
minute comparison with the parallels in the
other gospels (§§ 16 ft), in the course of which
(§ 17) Origen strikingly contrasts the baptisms
of John and Christ, and explains Christ's pre-
sence " in the midst of the Jews " (r. 26) of His
universal presence as the Logos (§ 22). The
l mention of Bethany (v. 28) leads him to a hasty
adoption of the correction " Bethabara " (§ 24),
which he justifies by the frequent errors as to
names in the LXX. His brief exposition of the
title of Christ " as the Lamb of God " (§§ 35 ft)
u full of interest ; and in connexion with this
he notices the power of the blood of martyrs to
overcome evil (§ 36).
The tenth book deals with the history of the
( first cleansing of the temple and its immediate
results (ii. 12-25). At the beginning Origen
thinks that the discrepancy between the evan-
gelists as to the sojourn at Capernaum (». 12) is
such that its solution can be found only in the
spiritual sense (§ 2), to which every minute point
tcmtributes, though in itself outwardly trivial
sad unworthy of record (§§ 2 ft). In the fol-
lowing sections the phrase " the passover of the
J«a " leads to an exposition of Christ as the
true Passover (§§ 11 ft). The cleansing of the
temple is shewn to have an abiding significance
t in life (J 16) ; and Origen thinks that the sign
which Christ offered is fulfilled in the raising of
the Christian church, built of living stones, out
«f trials and death, " after three days," — the
Ant of present suffering, the second of the con-
tamination, the third of the new order (§ 20).
The thirteenth book is occupied with the inter-
pretation of part of the history of the Samaritan
woman and the healing of the nobleman's son
(iv. 13-54). It is chiefly remarkable for the
number of considerable quotations from Hera-
deon's Commentary which it contains, more than
tvice as many as are contained in the other
t>«ks. These still require careful collection and
oiticism. Lommatzsch failed to fulfil the pro-
mise of his preface (I. p. xiii.). Passages ot
interest in regard to Origen's own views and
Erthod are those on the relation of Christ's
personal teaching to the Scriptures (§5), on the
fire husbands as representing the senses (§ 9),
«o the incorporeity of God (§ 25), on the joy of
the sower and reaper, and the continuity of work
<H 46 f.% on the unhonoured prophet (§ 54), on
•piritual dependence (§ 58), on the distinction
«f signs and wonders (§ 60).
Of the nineteenth book, which is imperfect at
tiie beginning and end, a considerable fragment
remains (viii. 19-25). In this the remarks on
the treasury (John viii. 20) as the scene of the
OEIGENE8
115
Lord's discourses (§ 2), and on the power of faith
(§ 6), are characteristic.
The twentieth book (viii. 37-53) has much that
is of importance for Origen's opinions. It begins
with an examination of some points in connexion
with the pre-existence and character of souls ;
and later on Origen, in a striking passage (§29),
illustrates the inspiration of evil passions. Of a
different kind, but still of interest, are the pas-
sages in which he treats of love as " the sun "
in the life of Christians (§ 15) ; of the ambi-
guities in the word " when " (§ 24) ; of the need
of help for spiritual sight (§ 26) ; on spiritual
influences (§ 29).
The most remarkable passage in the twenty-
eighth book (c. xi. 39-57) is perhaps that in which
Origen speaks of the power of self-sacrifice among
the Gentiles as illustrating the vicarious suffer-
ings of Christ (§ 14). Other remarks worthy of
special notice are those on the lifting up of the
eyes (John xi. 41) (§ 4), on the lesson of the
death of Lazarus (§ 6), on the duty of prudence
in time of persecution (§ 18), on the passover
of the Jews and of the Lord (§ 20).
The tharty-tecond book (c. xiii. 2-33) treats of
St. John's record of the Last Supper. Origen
discusses the feet-washing at length, and lays
down that it is not to be perpetuated literally
(§§ 6 f.) : he dwells on the growth of faith (§ 9),
on the difference of " soul " and " spirit " (§ 11%
on the character of Judas and moral deteriora-
tion (§ 12), on the sop given to Judas (§ 16).
From this slight sketch of the ruins of Origen's
Commentary some idea may be formed of its
character. It is for us the beginning of a new
type of literature. It has great faults of style.
It is diffusive, disproportioned, full of repeti-
tions, obscure and heavy in form of expression.
It is wholly deficient in historical insight. It
is continually passing into fantastic speculations.
But on the other hand it contains not a few
" jewels five words long." It abounds in noble
thoughts and subtle criticisms. It grapples with
great difficulties : it unfolds great ideas. And,
above all, it retains a firm hold on the human
life of the Lord.
Acts.
(Seventeen Homilies. — H. C.)
Greek.
(1) A single fragment from "the fourth
homily on the Act* " is preserved in the Philo-
calia.
Huet, iL 422.
Delarue, fv.
Lommatzsch. v. 245.
(2) A few notes are given in Cramer's Catena,
col. iii. 184, on the following passages :
tr.32; vil.3,53; xxl 38.*
Romans.
(Fifteen Books.— H. C.)
Greek.
(1) Fragments from the first and ninth books
contained in the Philocalia.
Huet, Ii. 423 ft*.
Delarue, lv.
Lommatzsch, v. 247 ft*.
• The MS. In the Chapter library at Worcester, said In
the Catal. Codd. Angl. to contain " Orlg. In Num. xll.
Propb. Ep. Con. Act," does not unhappily answer to the
description.
I 2
Digitized by
Google
116
OBIGENES
(2) A number of important notes are contained
in Cramer's Catena, torn. iv. 1844, on the fol-
lowing passages :
1. 1, 10.
II. 8, 16, 27.
ill. a, «, s, is, u, si, as, a;, as, so, a.
It. a.
Latin.
Ten books of Commentaries, translated and
compressed from the fifteen books of Origen, by
Rufinus, at the request of Heraclius. Rufinus
seems to have had difficulty in finding a com-
plete and satisfactory text to work upon (Praef.),
and he undoubtedly used considerable freedom,
both in other respects and in adapting the Com-
mentary not unfrequently to the current Latin
text of the Epistle.
Many MSS. ascribe the translation to Jerome,
and alter the preface and epilogue in this sense.
The work is so given in the earliest editions.
Erasmus pointed out the blunder.
The earliest MS. which I have seen is Brit.
Mas. Harl. 3030, saec. x.
The translation brings into prominence one
important point in regard to the critical use to
be made of the text of the translations of Origcn's
works which has not received proper attention.
Unless Origen's Greek reading is expressly noted,
the reading given must be regarded as a Latin
reading and not as Greek.
The language of Rufinus himself seems to shew
beyond doubt that he gave a current Latin text,
and not a version of Origen's Greek text, as the
basis of his adaptation of Origen's Commentary.
Thus, after he has given the Latin version, he
remarks several times that the Greek is better
or more expressive, and seeks to express the full
meaning of the original. Thus on vi. 11 he re-
marks upon the rendering " existimate vos mor-
tuos esse peccato," "melius quidem in Graeco
habetuT ' cogitate vos mortuos esse peccato;'"
And again upon xii. 2 : " ut probetis quae sit
voluntas Dei, qitod bonum et beneplacitum et per-
fection," " sciendum est quod in Graeco habetur,
' ut probetis quae sit voluntas Dei bona et bene-
placita et perfecta,' " " but we," he continues,
•' follow the custom of the Latins." The criticism
may be faulty, but it shews his usage. This is
marked again upon xii. 3, where he says, "we
must first observe that when we have omnibus
qui sunt inter vos," the text which he has given,
"it is in the Greek omni qui est in vobis ;" and
in viii. 3 he gives " de peccato," the common
Latin rendering, and adds, " or.as it is more truly
in the Greek text, pro peccato." In one place,
xv. 30, he quotes the Greek words which cor-
respond to the Vulgate rendering, "ut adjuvetis
me in orationibus," adding, "in quo hoc est quod
indicatur, ut adjuvetis me in agone orationum, . . "
But perhaps the most remarkable passage is
xii. 13, where he gives the rendering "usibus
sanctorum commnnicantes," with the note, " me-
mini in Latinis exemplaribus magis haberi 'me-
moriis sanctorum communicantes,' verum nos nee
consuetudinem turbamus, nee veritati praeju-
dicamus, maxime cum utrumque conveniat
aedificationi." There are difficulties in the inter-
pretation of his words, but they shew at least
that the Latin text had a principal place in his
thoughts.* The reference to the conflict of Latin
copies is illustrated by his note on xii. 11 :
OBIGENES
" Domino servientes," " scio autem in nonnullis
Latinorum exemplaribus haberi 'tempori ser-
vientes.' "
Apart from these statements the character of
the text is decisive. It is essentially an old
Latin text throughout. Sometimes it is directly
in conflict with Origen's Greek text, or his inter-
pretation, or with the groups of authorities with
which Origen agrees :
111. 9. om. ov vavrvxi.
111. 30. In conspectu Del; In commentary, i»
cowtpectu eiut.
111. 22. tn omna tt super — against Origen's
Greek text.
V. 8, 9. quonlsm st cum . . .multo magis justlfi-
catl— against Origen's Greek text and the
commentary.
V. 18. per unum paxatum— against Orlgen'a
Greek text,
vlli. 16. ipse enim, id.
ix. 19. quid ergo, id.
ix. 33. et omntl qui, id.
x. 3. suain justitiam, id.
xi. 36. in saecula taeculorvm.
xiii. 9. Add. non folium testimonium dices—
against Origen's Greek text,
xv. 8. Jeium CkrUtum, id.
xv. 14. om. nav.
xv. 19. spirltus Del ; tn commentary, splrttna
saneti.
xv. 30. om. i»Jp <ftov.
xvt 19. am. ii (1«).
Sometimes it gives readings which are solely
or characteristically Latin :
I. 32. non solum qui fadnnt ilia sed etiam qui.
1L 3. o homo omni*.
Iv. 23. reputatum est el adjustitian.
Iv. 34. Jesum Christum.
vii. 19. non eoim quod volo/acio oonum.
viii. 35. quls ergo.
ix. t. om. iii^y.
ix. 25. et non dilectam dilecUm et non m. c
m. c
x. 18. om. fuvovvy*.
xl. 5. salvae factae sunt.
Sometimes, on the other hand, it expresses the
Greek more accurately than other Latin texts :
1.26.
il. 19.
namet.
etconfldl*.
In a few cases it gives readings which are
apparently unique, of the kind which are found
in old Latin texts :
11.9. ettrlbulatlo.
xt. 24. nam si et to.
xlv.30. tioKte.
xvi. 9. adjutorem meum.
There remain a number of important readings,
in which the Latin teit agrees with Origen'a
Greek text or the commentary :
v. 14. In eoa qui peccaverunL
vlli. 1. om. firi . . .wvfvfia.
VI1L36. Dei.
vlli. 37. jiereum.
ix. 31. om. 5wco*o<TviTjt (2°).
x. 15. om. eiayy. tirfrnr (t).
Xii. 17. om. ov povov. . .aAAd koL
xlv. 9. vixit.
xlv. 21. om. ij ff*a»4. % irtmi.
» See the remarks on detlinolus, proedestinatus, lib. I.
$ 6, and on subditui (IU. 19), lib. 111. $ 6.
Digitized by
Google
0RIGENE8
To these perhaps may be added
xlv. 32. fldem quam babes.
XT. IS. out. o&cA^oC
It might appear at first sight that these read-
ings are due to Origen's text of the epistle which
Rufinus had before him, but it will be found
that there is independent old Latin authority for
every one of these readings, except that in x. 15,
where, however, there is considerable variety of
reading.
A careful consideration of this evidence leads
to the conclusion, that we hare substantially in
the text of the epistle given by Rufinus an old
Latin copy of the highest value, and charac-
teristic renderings point out its affinities. It
resemble* closely, in its general form, the text
of Sedulitu, and of some of the copies used by
Augustine. The extent and nature of the co-
incidence may be estimated roughly from the
following peculiar phrases :
i. 15. quod in me promptos sum (comp. Am-
brtr.,Sedul.)
H.4. anstentatlonla et patlentlae (Hler.)
U. 8. diffldunt quldem . . .obtemperant.
UL». quid ergo tenemus ampllus? caueatl
(Sedul. MSS.)
vi. 8. et convivemus el (Sedul.)
H. IX ad obediendum deskterils elas (Aug.)
vUL 22. congemhclt et condolet (Sedul.)
lx. 22 f. apt* In perditlonem ut nous faceret
(Aug., Sedul.)
xlli. S. neceeae est subdltos esse (Sedul.)
xlv. 5. alter Judical altemos dies (Aug.)
xv. J6. commemorans vos per gratlam dat&ni
(Aug.)
Some renderings are apparently not found
elsewhere, e.g.:
L 11. ut allquod trsdsm vobls donum spiri-
tual.
Sv. 17. ante eum cui credldlt Deum.
xL 14. in aemulatlonem lmmittam.
xv. 31. ut minlsterium boo meum acceptnm
fiat.
xvi. t. Inltium Aslae.
xvi, 25. aacramentl aaeculonun in silentlo habttl,
manifestatl autem modo.
A comparison of these renderings with the
corresponding renderings in the Codex Boer-.
Karianus, suggests that Rufinus probably adopted
the Latin text of a Graeco- Latin copy, which had
been in some details influenced by the Greek,
but which preserved essentially its original com-
plexion. The continuous Latin text cannot, how-
ever, be quoted as representing Origen's reading.
This is not the place to extend farther the
inquiry into the textual characteristics of the
biblical quotations in the translations of Origen's
works. It will be sufficient to have called atten-
tion, in one signal example, to the singular and
unexpected features of interest which they ofl'er.
The commentary gives a continuous discussion
of the text, often discursive, but still full of
acute and noble conceptions. Some of the most
striking passages may be indicated.
Book l. (c i.).
$y4ff. On the Sonship of the Lord.
1 18. Responsibility.
Book II. (c ii. 2— iii. 4).
§ % The duty of teachers. Comp. J 1L.
y ». The law of nature.
y 13. Spiritual circumcision.
OBIGENES
117
Book in. (c iii. 5-31).
y 2. The universal sinfulness of man.
y 6. The law of nature of universal obligation
(p. 1*1 L., of great interest).
y 8. Christ our propitiation.
y a. Justification by faith.
Book iv. (c iv. 1-v. 11).
$ 1. Tbe need of grace (non ex opcrtbus radix
justitlae sed ex radlce Juatidae fructus
operum crescit, p. 241 L.)
y B. Faith of grace: the "likeness" of God to to
gained.
y «. Hope.
y 7. The experience of faith of Abraham fulfilled
in the experience of Christians (pp.
283 If. L., of great Interest).
y ». Glory In tribulation.
Book v. (c. v. 12-vi. 11).
y 1. The manlfoldness of the divine treasures
(pp. 322 ff. I*, of great interest).
$ 2. Justification through Christ.
y 8. The law of nature the occasion of sin.
5 8. Baptism (and Confirmation) of Infanta.
y 10. Spiritual death.
Book VI. (c vi. 12-viii. 18).
8. The operation of the law of nature.
j B. The conflict in man (ipse ca quasi In semet-
lpao geri descripslt).
v 12. The weakness of tbe law.
y 13. The action of the Spirit through man.
Book VII. (c. viii. 14-ix. 33).
$$ 3 ff. The inheritance of Christians.
i 7. The work of the Spirit,
y 8. Foreknowledge not the cause of that which
is foreknown.
y 11. The discipline of suffering (p. 140, of great
Interest).
y 13. St. Paul's spirit of self-sacrifice.
y 17. Divine mysteries Insoluble.
Book VIII. (c I. 1-xi. 36).
$ 2. Christ and the Law.
y (. The several duties of men.
$ 10. Tbe unity of rational beings.
} 11. Purification by fire for those who neglect
the Gospel.
Book IX. (c xii. 1-xiv. 15).
y I. The worship of God.
y 3. Girts of grace according to tbe measure of
faith here and hereafter.
$$25,30. Civil duties.
Book x. (c. xiv. 16-end
$ 3. Things clean and unclean.
$ 0. Unselfishness.
$ 10. Progressive knowledge.
$ 14. Christians' help to Christians.
It may be added that Origen's treatment of
the eighth chapter, as represented by Rufinus,
is, on the whole, disappointing. It might have
been expected to call out his highest powers of
imagination and hope. His silence, no less than
his rash conjectures as to the persons named in
the sixteenth chapter, is a singular proof of the
complete absence of any authoritative tradition
as to the persons of the early Roman church.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
118
ORIGENES
For the passage (x. 43) which refers to Mar-
cion's mutilation of the epistle by removing the
doxology (xri. 25-27) and (though this is dis-
puted) the last two chapters, it must be enough
to refer to the papers by Bp. Lightfoot and Dr.
Hort in the Journal of Philology, 1869, ii.
264 ft". ; 1871, Hi. 51 ff., 193 ff.
1-2 Corinthians.
(Eleven Homilies on 2 Cor. — H. C.)
Greek.
Jerome mentions (Ep. ad Fammach. xlix. § 3)
that Origen commented on this epistle at
length ; and Origen himself refers to what he
had said on 1 Cor. i. 2 {Bom. in Luc. xvii. «./.).
A very important collection of notes on the
first epistle is given in Cramer's Catena, vol. v.
1844, which deal with the following passages :
1 3 (bis), 4, 7 (bin), 9 (bis), 10, 11, n (bis), 18,
30 (bis), 21, 22 f., 26 (ter).
11. 1, 3, 6 f., 7, 9, 10, 14 I (bis),
ill. 2, 3, 7, 9, 16, 21.
iv. 1 f., 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 30.
V. 5 (W»), 9.
vi. 2, 4, 9 f., 12, 13 (bis), IS, 18, 19 f.
vlL 1 r, t (bis), 14, 18 f, 31, 25.
ix. 7, 10, 16, 19, 23, 24.
1.6,6.
III. 3, 28.
Xlll. 1 f., 3, 4, 12.
Xlv. 31, 34, 33.
XV. 2, 20, 37.
XVL 10, 13.
It appears that the notes were taken from
homilies (irepl Ztv ko2 irpefrijc iK4yofuy, c. iii. 1 ;
TrapajcaXoufiiy ko1 6/ias a TtaSZts, c. vi. 9). Some
of the notes contain passages of considerable
interest, as that on the vicarious death of
Gentile heroes (c. i. 18 ; comp. Horn, in Joh.
torn, xxviii. § 14), on the sovereignty of believers
(c. iii. 21), on evangelic " counsels " (c. vii. 25),
on the public teaching of women (c. xiv. 34, with
reference to Montanism). In other places Origen
gives the outline of a creed (c. i. 9, 20), and
touches on Baptism (c. i. 14) and Holy Communion
(c. vii. 5). He describes the Jewish search for
leaven (c. v. 7) ; and supposes that many books
of the Old Testament were lost at the Captivity
(c. ii. 9).
The text, as in all the notes in Cramer, is full
of obvious blunders and requires careful editing,
-with a fresh collation of the MS.
Oalatians.
(Fifteen Books ; seven Homilies. — H. C.)
Jerome, in the Prologue to his Commentary on
the Galatians, mentions that Origen wrote five
Books on this epistle, as well as various Homilies
and Notes (tractatus et excerpta), and that he in-
terpreted it with brief annotations (commatico
sermone) in the tenth book of his Stromateis
(Proem, in Comm. ad Qal. ; Ep. ad August, cxi.
§§ 4, 6).
Three fragments of the Commentary are con-
tained in the Latin translation of Pamphilus's
Apology.
Jerome does not seem to have made much use
of Origen in his own Commentary ; but this work
has not yet been carefully examined with a view
to determine how far it is original.
Ephesians.
(Three Books H. C.)
Origen's commentary on the Ephesians may
still be practically recovered. Jerome, in the
0EIGENE8
Prologue to his own Commentary, says that " his
readers should know that Origen wrote three
books on the epistle, which he had partly fol-
lowed " (Mud quoque in praefatione commoneo ut
sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hanc Epistotam
conscripsisse, quern et nos ex parte sccuti sumus).
The extent of his debt could only be estimated
by conjecture, till the publication of the Paris
Catena (Cramer, 1842). This contains very large-
extracts from Origen's commentary, sometimes-
with his name and sometimes anonymous, and in.
nearly all cases Jerome has corresponding words
or thoughts. Nor is it too much to say that a
careful comparison of the Greek fragments with
Jerome's Latin would make it possible to recon-
struct in substance a very large part of Origen's
work ; and it is strange that the work has not
yet been attempted. The corresponding notes
on the description of the Christian warfare (vi.
11 ff.) offer a good example of Jerome's mode of
dealing with his archetype.
The comments of Origen are almost con-
tinuous, and deal with the following passages :
Chap. i. 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23.
„ 11. 1 ff., 8, 12, 13, 17, 19 ff.
„ Hi. 1 ff., 12, 14, 15.
„ lv. 3, 6, 9-15, 17, 18, 20, 24-33.
„ v. 3-6, 10-12, 16-20, 29, 31, 32,
„ vl. 1, 9-16, 18, 19, 21, 23.
A fragment on Eph. v. 28 f. is preserved in
the Latin translation of the Apology of Pam-
philus. This is not found in the Greek notes.
Philippians. Colossians. Titus. Philemon.
(One Book on Philippians; two Books on
Colossians ; one on Titus ; one on Philemon ; one-
Homily on Titus.— H. C.)
Short fragments from the third Book on the
epistle to the Colossians, and from the Com-
mentary on the epistle to Philemon, and more
considerable fragments from the Book on the
epistle to Titus (Tit. iii. 10, 11), are found in
the translation of Pamphilus's Apology.
No Greek notes on these epistles have been
preserved.
1 Thessalonians.
(Three Books ; two Homilies. — H. C)
A considerable fragment from the third book
of the Commentary on 1 Thess. is preserved in
Jerome's translation : Ep. ad Minerv. et Alex. 9
(1 Thess. iv. 15-17).
Hebrews.
(Eighteen Homilies.— H. C.)
Origen wrote Homilies and Commentaries on
the epistle to the Hebrews. Two fragments of
the Homilies are preserved by Eusebius (if. E.
vi. 25), in which Origen gives his opinion on the
composition of the epistle.
Some inconsiderable fragments from the
" Books " are found in the translation of Pam-
philus's Apology.
Catholic Epistles.
The quotations from Origen, which are given
in Cramer's Catena on the catholic epistles, axe
apparently taken from other treatises, and not
from commentaries on the books themselves :
James i. 4, 13 ; 1 Pet. i. 4 («7c rrjs ipitJivtita tit
to Kara *p6yyu<ru> SeoS) ; 1 John ii. 14 («Vt rov
turixarot r&v Qvpirccv T. A'.).
Apocalypse.
Origen purposed to comment upon the Apo-
calypse (Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 49), but it is un-
certain whether he carried out his design.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
OBIGENES
B. Dogmatic WRmaos.*
On the Resurrection,
Delarne, t. 32-37.
Lommatsacb, xvil. 53-64.
Origen's writings "On the resurrection," which
are said to have consisted of two books and of a
dialogue in two books (Hier.ap. Rnf.Apoi. ii. §20;
comp. Hier. Ep. xxziii. 3 [H. C.]), preceded, in
part at least, his essay on First Principles (c. 230).
They were Tiolently assailed by Methodius, and
were considered by Jerome to abound in errors
(Ep. IzzziT. 7). Probably they excited opposi-
tion by assailing the gross literalism which pre-
vailed in the popular view of the future life.
The fragments which remain are consistent with
the true faith, and express it with a wise caution,
affirming the permanence through death of the
whole man and not of the soul only. Thus Origen
dwells rightly on St. Paul's image of the seed
(Fraijm. 2) ; and maintains a perfect correspon-
dence between the present and the future (qualis
fuerit uniuscujusque praeparatio in hac vita
talis erit et resnrrectio ejus), and speaks very
happily of the " ratio substantias corporalis " as
that which is permanent.
On first Principles (rtpl ipx**- De prim-
eg)M).«
(Four Books Periaroon, — H. C.)
Detune, 1. 42-196.
Tjommatasca, xzL
Greek.
(1) Considerable fragments of books iii. iv.,
preserved in the Philocalia.
(2) A few others mainly in the letter of
Justinian to Menas.
Latin.
(1) A complete translation by Rufiuus, who
took great liberties with the text.
(2) Fragments of a translation by Jerome,
given in a letter to Avitus (Ep. 124).
The book On first principles is the most com-
plete and characteristic expression of Origen's
opinions. It was written while he was in the
fall course of his work at Alexandria. He was
probably at the time not much more than thirty
years old and still a hiyman, but there is no
reason to think that he modified, in any im-
portant respects, the views which he unfolds in
it. The book, it must be borne in mind, was
not written for simple believers but for scholars,
— for those who were familiar with the teaching
of Gnosticism and Platonism ; and with a view
to questions which then first become urgent
when men have risen to a wide view of nature
and life. Non-Christian philosophers moved in
a region of subtle abstractions, " ideas " : Origen
felt that Christianity converted these abstrac-
tions into realities, persons, facts of a complete
life ; and he strove to express what he felt in
the modes of thought and language of his own
age. He aimed at presenting the highest know-
ledge (yrSati) as an objective system. But in
doing this he had no intention of fashioning two
Christianities, a Christianity for the learned and
OBIGENE8
119
• It is not certain what the MonobMia, of which
Jerome (peaks (Ep. xxxllL 3), weie. Tbey may have
been detached essays on particular points.
* The edition of Bedepenning (E. R.), Lipsiae, 1836,
k useful and convenient. The translation by Schnltier,
Stougart, 1835, has a suggestive Introduction.
a Christianity for the simple. The faith was
one, one essentially and unalterably, but infinite
in fulness, so that the trained eye could see
more of its harmonies as it necessarily looked for
more. Fresh wants made fresh truths visible.
He who found much had nothing over : he who
found little had no lack.
The book is the earliest attempt to form a
system of Christian doctrine, or rather a philo-
sophy of the Christian faith. In this respect it
marks an epoch in Christian thought, but no
change in the contents of the Christian creed.
The elements of the dogmatic basis are assumed
on the authority of the church. The author's
object is, as he says, to shew how they can be
arranged as a whole, by the help either of the
statements of Scripture or of the methods of exact
reasoning. And however strange or startling
the teaching of Origen may seem to us, it is
necessary to bear in mind that this is the ac-
count which he gives of it. He takes for granted
that all that he brings forward is in harmony
with received teaching. He professes to accept
as final the same authorities as ourselves.
The treatise consists of four books. The com-
position is not strictly methodical. Digressions
and repetitions interfere with the symmetry of
the plan. But to speak generally the first book
deals with Ood and creation (religious statics) ;
the second and third books with creation and
providence, with man and redemption (religious
dynamics) ; and the fourth book with Holy Scrip-
ture. Or to put the case somewhat differently,
the first three books contain the exposition of a
Christian philosophy, gathered round the three
ideas of God, the world, and the rational soul,
and the last gives the basis of it. Even in the
repetitions (as on " the restoration of things ")
it is not difficult to see that each successive treat-
ment corresponds with a new point of sight.
In the first book Origen sets out the final
elements of all religious philosophy, God, the
world, rational creatures. After dwelling on
the essential nature of God as incorporeal, in-
visible, incomprehensible, and on the charac-
teristic relations of the Persons of the Holy
Trinity to man, as the authors of being, and
reason, and holiness, be gives a summary view
of the end of human life, for the elements of a
problem cannot be really understood until we
have comprehended its scope. The end of life
then, according to Origen, is the progressive
assimilation of man to God by the voluntary
appropriation of His gifts. Gentile philosophers
had proposed to themselves the idea of assimila-
tion to God, but Origen adds the means. By
the unceasing action of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit towards us, renewed at each succes-
sive stage of our advance, we shall be able, he
says, with difficulty perchance, at some future
time, to look on the holy and blessed life ; and
when once we have been enabled to reach that,
after many struggles, we ought so to continue in
it that no weariness may take hold on us. Each
fresh enjoyment of that bliss ought to enlarge
or deepen our desire for it ; while we are ever
receiving or holding, with more ardent love and
larger grasp, the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit h. 3, 8).
But it will be said that this condition of pro-
gress, effort, assimilation, involves the possibility
of declension, indolence, the obliteration of the
Digitized by
Google
120
ORIGENES
divine image. If man can go forward he can go
backward. Origen accepts the consequence, and
finds in it an explanation of the actual state of
men and angels. The present position of each
rational being corresponds, in his judgment, with
the use which he has hitherto made of the reve-
lations and gifts of God. No beings were created
originally immutable in character. Some by
diligent obedience have been raised to the loftiest
places in the celestial hierarchy : others by per-
verse self-will and rebellion have sunk into the
condition of demons. Others occupy an inter-
mediate place, and are capable of being raised
again to their first state, and so upward, if they
avail themselves of the helps which are provided
by the love of God. " Of these," he adds, " I
think, as far as I can form an opinion, that this
order of the human race was formed, which in
the future age, or in the ages which succeed,
when there shall be a new heaven and a new
earth, shall be restored to that unity which
the Lord promises in His intercessory prayer."
" Meanwhile, " he continues, " both in the ages
which are seen and temporal, and in those which
are not seen and eternal, all rational beings who
have fallen are dealt with according to the order,
the character, the measure of their deserts. Some
in the first, others in the second, some, again,
even in the last times, through greater and
neavieT sufferings, borne through many ages,
reformed by sharper discipline, and restored . . .
stage by stage . . . reach that which is invisible
and eternal ..." Only one kind of change is
impossible. There is no such transmigration of
souls as Plato pictured, after the fashion of the
Hindoos, in the legend of Er the Armenian. No
rational being can sink into the nature of a
brute (i. 8, 4 ; comp. c. Cell. iv. 83).
The progress of this discussion is interrupted
by one singular episode which is characteristic
of the time. How, Origen asks, are we to re-
gard the heavenly bodies, — the sun and moon and
stars ? Are they animated and rational ? Are
they the temporary abodes of souls which shall
hereafter be released from them? Are they
finally to be brought into the great unity, when
"God shall be all in all"? The questions, he
admits, are bold ; but he answers all in the
affirmative, on what he held to be the authority
of Scripture (i. 7 ; comp. c. Ceh. v. 10 f.).
In the second book Origen pursues, at greater
length, that view of the visible world, as a place
of discipline and preparation, which has been
already indicated. He follows out as a move-
ment what he had before regarded as a condi-
tion. The endless variety in the situations of
men, the inequality of their material and moral
circumstances, their critical spiritual differences,
all tend to shew, he argues, that the position of
each has been determined in accordance with
previous conduct. And God, in His ineffable
wisdom, has uuited all together with absolute
justice, so that all these creatures, most diverse
in themselves, combine to work out His purpose,
while " their very variety tends to the one end
of perfection." All things were made for the
sake of man and rational beings. It is through
man, therefore, that this world, as God's work,
becomes complete and perfect (comp. c. Cels.
iv. 99). The individual is never isolated, though
he is never irresponsible. At every moment he
if acting and acted upon, adding something to
OEIGENES
the sum of the moral forces of the world, fur-
nishing that out of which God is fulfilling His
purpose. The difficulties of life, as Origen re-
gards them, give scope for heroic effort and
loving service. The fruits of a moral victory
become more permanent as they are gained
through harder toil. The obstacles and hind-
rances by which man is hemmed in are incen-
tives to exertion. His body is not a " prison,"
in the sense of a place of punishment only : it is
a beneficent provision for the discipline of beings
to whom it furnishes such salutary restraints as
are best fitted to further their moral growth.
This view of the dependence of the present on
the past — to use the forms of human speech —
seemed to Origen to remove a difficulty which
weighed heavily upon thoughtful men in the first
age, as it has weighed heavily upon thoughtful
men in our own generation. Very many said
then that the sufferings and disparities of life,
the contrasts of the law and the gospel, point to
the action of rival spiritual powers, or to a
Creator limited by something external to Him-
self (ii. 9, 5). Not so, was Origen's reply ;
they simply reveal that what we see is a frag-
ment of a vast system in which we can do no
more than trace tendencies, consequences, signs,
and rest upon the historic fact of the Incarna-
tion. In this respect he ventured to regard the
entire range of being as " one thought " answer-
ing to the absolutely perfect will of God, while
" we that are but parts can see but part, now this,
now that." And this seems to be the true mean-
ing of his famous assertion, that the power of
God in creation was finite and not infinite. It
would, that is, be inconsistent with our ideas of
perfect order, and therefore with our idea of the
Divine Being, that the sum of first existences
should not form one whole. "God made all
things in number and measure." The omnipo-
tence of God is defined (as we are forced to con-
ceive) by the absolute perfections of His nature.
"He cannot deny Himself" (ii. 9, 1 ; iv. 35).
But it may be objected more definitely that
our difficulties do not lie only in the circum-
stances of the present : that the issues of the
present, so far as we can see them, bring diffi-
culties no less overwhelming : that even if we
allow that this world is fitted to be a place of
discipline for fallen beings who are capable of
recovery, it is only too evident that the discipline
does not always work amendment. Origen admits
the fact, and draws from it the conclusion, that
other systems of penal purification and moral
advance follow. According to him world grows
out of world, so to speak, till the consummation
is reached. What is the nature or position or
constitution of the worlds to come he does not
attempt to define. It is enough to believe that,
from first to last, the will of Him who is most
righteous and most loving is fulfilled : and that
each loftier region gained is the entrance to some
still more glorious abode above, so that all being
becomes, as it were, in the highest sense, a
journey of the saints from mansion to mansion
up to the very throne of God.
In order to give clearness to this view Ori-
gen follows out, in imagination, the normal
course of the progressive training, purifying and
illumination of men in the future. He pictures
them passing from sphere to sphere, and resting
in each so as to receive such revelations of the
Digitized by
Google
OEIGENES
providence of God as they can grasp; lower
phenomena are successively explained to them,
and higher phenomena are indicated. As they
look backward old mysteries are illuminated:
as they look forward unimagined mysteries stir
their souls with divine desire. Everywhere
their Lord is with them, and they advance from
strength to strength through the perpetual
supply of spiritual food. This food, he says, is
the contemplation and understanding of God,
according to its proper measure in each case,
and as suits a nature which is made and created.
And this measure — this due harmony and pro-
portion between aim and power — it is right that
every one should regard even now, who is begin-
ning to see God, that is, to understand Him in
purity of heart (ii. 11,6 f.).
But while Origen opens this infinite prospect
ef scene upon scene to faith or hope or imagina-
tion, call it as we may, he goes on to shew that
Scripture concentrates our attention upon the
neit scene, summed up in the words, resurrec-
tion, judgment, retribution. Nowhere is he
more studiously anxious to keep to the teaching
of the Word than in dealing with these cardinal
idea*. For him the resurrection is not the repro-
duction of any particular organism, but the pre-
servation of complete identity of person, an
identity maintained under new conditions, which
he presents under the apostolic figure of the
growth of the plant from the seed : the seed is
committed to the earth, perishes, and yet the
vital power which it contains gathers a new
frame answering to its proper nature. Judgment
is no limited and local act, but the unimpeded
execution of the absolute divine law by which
the man is made to feel what he is and what he
has become, and to bear the inexorable conse-
quences of the revelation. Punishment is no
vengeance, but the just severity of a righteous
King, by which the soul is placed at least on the
way of purification. Blessedness is no sensuous
joy or indolent repose, but the opening vision
of the divine glory, the growing insight into
the mysteries of the fulfilment of the divine
counsels.
In the third book Origen discusses the moral
basis of his system. This lies in the recognition
of free-will as the inalienable endowment of
rational beings. But this free-will does not
carry with it the power of independent action,
but only the power of receiving the help which
is extended to each according to his capacity and
needs, and therefore just responsibility for the
consequences of action. Such free-will offers
a sufficient explanation, in Origen's judgment,
for what we see, and gives a stable foundation
for what we hope. It places sin definitely within
the man himself, and not without him. It pre-
serves the possibility of restoration, while it en-
forces the penalty of failure. " ' God said,' so he
writes, ' let us make man in our image after our
likeness.' Then the sacred writer adds, 'and
God made man : in the image of God made He
him.' This therefore that he says, ' in the image
of God made He him,' while be is silent as to
the likeness, has no other meaning than this,
that man received the dignity of the image at
his first creation : while the perfection of the
likeness is kept in the consummation (of all
things) ; tnat is, that he should himself gain it
by the efforts of his own endeavour, since the
OBIGENES
121
possibility of perfection had been given him at
the first..." (Hi. 6, 1).
Such a doctrine, he shews, gives a deep solem-
nity to the moral conflicts of life. We cannot,
even to the last, plead that we are the victims
of circumstances or of evil spirits. The decision
in each case, this way or that, rests with our-
selves, yet so that all we have and are truly is
the gift of God. Each soul obtains from the
object of its love the power to fulfil His will.
" It draws and takes to itself," he says in another
place, "the Word of God in proportion to its
capacity and faith. And when souls have drawn
to themselves the Word of God, and have let
Him penetrate their senses and their under-
standings, and have perceived the sweetness of
His fragrance . . . filled with vigour and cheer-
fulness they speed after him ..."(in Cant. i.).
Such a doctrine, so far from tending to Pcla-
gianism, is the very refutation of it. It lays
down that the essence of freedom is absolute
self-surrender: that the power of right action
is nothing but the power of God. Every act of
man is the act of a free being, but not an exer-
cise of freedom: if done without dependence
upon God, it is done in despite of freedom, re-
sponsibly indeed, but under adverse constraint.
The decision from moment to moment, Origen
maintains, rests with us, but not the end. That
is determined from the first, though the conduct
of creatures can delay, through untold ages, the
consummation of all things. The gift of being,
once given, abides for ever. The rational creature
is capable of change, of better and worse, but it
can never cease to be. What mysteries however
lie behind ; what is the nature of the spiritual
body in which we shall be clothed ; whether all
that is finite shall be gathered up in some un-
speakable way into the absolute, — that Origen
holds is beyond our minds to conceive.
As the third book deals with the moral basis
of Origen's system, so the fourth and last deals
with its dogmatic basis. This order of succes-
sion in the treatise is unusual, and yet it is in-
telligible. It moves from the universal to the
special ; from that which is most abstract to
that which is most concrete ; from the heights
of speculation to the rule of authority. "In
investigating such great subjects as these,"
Origen writes, " we are not content with com-
mon ideas and the clear evidence of what we see,
but we take testimonies to prove what we state,
even those which are drawn from the Scriptures
which we believe to be divine " (iv. 1). There-
fore, in conclusion, he examines with a reverence,
an insight, a humility, a grandeur of feeling
never surpassed, the questions of the inspiration
and the interpretation of the Bible. The intel-
lectual value of the work may best be charac-
terised by one fact. A single sentence taken
from it was quoted by Butler as containing the
germ of his Analogy.
Miscellanies.
Delarae, 1. 31-41.
Lommatzsch, xvii. 65-J8.
Before he left Alexandria Origen wrote ten
books of miscellanies (SrpafiaTtis : comp. Euseb.
//. E. vi. 18).* In these he appears to have dis-
• In H. C. the title "Stromatum," without any farther
definition, is given after the Books on Leviticus and
before those on Isaiah.
Digitized by
Google
122
0EIGENE8
cussed various topics in the light of ancient
philosophy and Scripture (Hier. Ep. ad ilagn.
Six. 4). The three fragments which remain, in
a Latin translation, give no sufficient idea of
their contents. The first, from the sixth book,
touches on the permissibility of deflection from
literal truth, following out a remark of Plato
(Hier. adv. Suf. i. § 18 : comp. Horn. xix. t» Jer.
§ 7 ; Horn, in Lev. iii. § 4). The second, from
the tenth book, contains brief notes on the history
of Susanna and Bel (Dan. xiii. xiv.) added by
Jerome to his commentary on Daniel. The third,
from the same book, gives an interpretation of
Gal. v. 13, which is referred to the spiritual
understanding of the narratives of Scripture
(Hier. ad toe. Compare also Hier. in Jertm. iv.
xxii. 24 ff.)
Letter to Julius Africanus on the bo-
toby of Susanna (Dan. xiii.).
This letter was written from Nicomedia (§ 15),
and probably on the occasion of Origen's second
visit to Greece (c 240). It contains a reply to
the objections which Julius Africanus urged
against the authenticity of the history of
Susanna, and offers a crucial and startling proof
of Origen's deficiency in historical criticism. Afri-
canus pointed out, among other things, that the
writing must have been Greek originally, from
the plays upon words which it contains, and
that it was not contained in the " Hebrew "
Daniel. To these arguments Origen answers
that he had indeed been unable (<)iXq yap i)
MiBtui) to find Hebrew equivalents to the
paronomasias quoted, but that they may exist ;
and that the Jews had probably omitted the
history to save the honour of their elders. In
thus vindicating the authority of the narrative,
on the evidence of the current Greek Bible, he
recognises the difference between " the Scriptures
of the Jews " and " the Scriptures of the church,"
which became fruitful in confusion afterwards.
He is unwilling to sacrifice anything which he
has found held to be sacred. Providence, he
held, must have provided for the edification of
the church. It is well, too, to remember the
words which bid us " not to remove the eternal
landmarks {aidyw. fpui) which those set who
were before us " (§§4 ff). If it is natural to
admire the reverence of the scholar, made doubly
sensitive perhaps by the controversies which he
had unwillingly raised, it must be allowed that
right lies with the aged Africanus, who could
address Origen as " a son," and whose judgment
was in the spirit of his own noble saying : — " May
such a principle never prevail in the church of
Christ that falsehood is framed for His praise
and glory " (Fragm. ap. Routh, £. S. ii. 230>
C. The eight books against Celsius.
Maine, i. 310-799.
Lommatzsch.
The following MSS. of the Booh against Celsus
are known more or less imperfectly :
1. Cod. August. (Munich, Cod. Grace, lxiv.) saec.
xvl. followed in the main by D. Hoeschel in the
Editio princept. (See Reiser, Catol. p. 38.)
2. Cod. Palatlnns, used also by Hoeschel.'
t Hoeschel says on his title page that he edited the Book
"ex btbUothecIs Elect. Palat. Boica et Aug." In his
notes he refers several times to "Codex Palatums." I
am not aware that this MS. has been Identified.
OBIGENES
3. Cod. Vatic. (Borne) Montfancon, BlbL MSS. L
12 E. [Used by Persona for the Latin trans-
lation i)
4. Cod. Ottobon. (Rome) Montfancon, I. e. i. 186 a.
5. Cod. Ambros. (Milan) 'c. Cctsunt volnmlna
trta.' Montfancon, 2. c. 1. 502 d.
ft. Cod. Bodl. MisceU. 21 (Oxford). Saec. xv.
t. , 36, 1 (Oxford). Saec. xvL
Baa. t. and part of II.
8. Cod. Coll. Novi (Oxford). Saec xvi. A gift of
Card. Pole to the college.
9. Cod. S. Marci, 44 (Venice). Saec. xiv.
10. , 45 (Venice). Saec. xiv.
11. , 46 (Venice). Saec. xv.
12. Cod. Leldensis (Leyden). Fabriclus, vli. p. 220.
Delarue says that his text was collated with
eight MSS.: — "Regie*, Basiliensi, Jobiano, qui
nunc est ecclesiae cathedralis Parisiensis, duobua
Vaticanis [recenti et vetere, ii. 11] et tribtu
Anglicanis (L p. 315), but he gives no further
details. They probably included 3, 4, 6, 7, 8.
The MSS. agree not unfrequently in readings
which are obviously corrupt, and differ from
the text in the Philocalia ; but as yet they have
not been so examined as to determine their
mutual relations. Elie Bouhereau in his French
translation of the work (Amsterdam, 1700)
shewed great skill, with too much boldness, in
dealing with the text ; and Mosheim in the Pre-
face to his valuable German translation (Ham-
burg, 1745) says justly : " Bouhereau, der nichts
mehr als seinen Witz hat brauchen kfinnen, hat
weit mehr kranke Stellen des Origenes geschickt
geheilet als Carl de la Rue mit alien seinen acht
alten Abschriften " (Pref. p. 8).
An edition of Books i.-iv. was published by
Prof. W. Selwyn (Cambridge, 1872-4) with
short critical notes and some emendations. The
best English translation is that by Dr. Crombie,
in Clark's Ante-Nicene Chrittian Library, Edin-
burgh, 1869, 1872. The French translation by
Bouhereau, and the German translation by
Mosheim (see above) are of considerable value.
The earlier apologists had been called upoD
to defend Christianity against the outbursts of
popular prejudice, as a system compatible with
civil and social order. Origen, in his Book*
against Celsus, entered upon a far wider field.
It was his object to defend the faith against a
comprehensive attack, conducted by critical, his-
torical, and philosophical, as well as by political,
arguments. He undertook the work very un-
willingly, at the urgent request of his friend
Ambrosius, but when he had once undertaken it,
he threw into the labour the whole energy of
his genius. Celsus was an opponent worthy of
his antagonism [Celsus] ; and Origen has at
least done justice to his adversary, by allowing
him to state his case in his own words, and fol-
lowing him step by step in the great controversy.
At first Origen proposed to deal with the attack
of Celsus in a general form ; but after i. 27 he
quotes the objections of Celsus, in the order of
their occurrence, and deals with them one by
one, so that it is possible to reconstruct the work
of Celsus, in great part, from Origen's quota-
tions. It would be difficult to overrate the im-
portance both of the attack and of the defence
in relation to the history of religions opinion in
the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The form of objec-
tions changes; but it may be said fairly that
every essential type of objection to Christianity
finds its representative in Celsus' statements,
Digitized by VjOOQlC
OBIGENES
and Origen suggests in reply thoughts, often
disguised in strange dresses, which may yet be
fruitful.
Mo outline can convey a true idea of the ful-
ness and variety of the contents of the treatise.
It may however indicate the range of the dis-
cussion. Speaking broadly the whole work falls
into three parts, — the controversy on the history
of Christianity (books i. ii.), the controversy on
the general character and idea of Christianity
(books iii.-v.), the controversy on the relations
of Christianity to philosophy, to popular religion,
and to national life (books vi.-viii.). There are
necessarily many repetitions, bnt in the main this
view appears to represent the course of the argu-
ment. The lines of the discussion were laid down
by Celsus: Origen simply followed him.
After some introductory chapters (i. 1-27),
which deal with a large number of miscellaneous
objections to Christianity as illegal, secret, of
barbarous origin, inspired by a demoniac power,
an offshoot of Judaism, Origen meets Celsus' first
serious attack, which is directed against the
Christian interpretation of the gospel history.
In this case Celsus places his arguments in the
mouth of a Jew. The character, as Origen points
out, is not consistently maintained, but the
original conception is ingenious. A Jew might
reasonably be supposed to be the best critic of a
system which sprang out of his own people. The
chief aim of the objector is to shew that the
miraculous narratives of the gospels are untrust-
worthy, inconclusive in themselves, and that
the details of the Lord's life, so far as they can
be ascertained, furnish no adequate support to
the Christian theory of His person. The criti-
cism is wholly external and unsympathetic.
Can we suppose, Celsus asks, that He who was
God would be afraid and flee to Egypt (i. 66) ?
that He could have had a body like other men
(i. 69 ; ii. 36)? that He would have lived a sordid
wandering life, with a few mean followers (i. 62)?
that He would hare borne insults without exact-
ing vengeance (ii. 35) ? that He would have been
met with incredulity (ii. 75)? that He would
have died upon the cross (ii. 68) ? that He would
have shewn Himself only to friends if He rose
again (ii. 63) ? For the rest he repeats the Jewish
story of the shameful birth of Christ, and of His
education in Egypt, where Celsus supposes that
He learned the magical arts by which He was
enabled to impose upon His countrymen. These
illustrations sufficiently shew the fatal weakness
of Celsus' position. He has no eye for the facts
of the inner life. He makes no effort to appre-
hend the gospel offered in what Christ did and was,
as a revelation of spiritual power ; and Origen
rises immeasurably superior to him in his vin-
dication of the majesty of Christ's humiliation
and sufferings (i. 29 ff.). He shews that Christ
did "dawn as a sun" upon the world (ii 30),
when judged by a moral and not by an external
standard (ii. 40): that He left to His disciples
tbe abiding power of doing "greater works"
than He Himself did in His earthly life (ii. 48) ;
that the actual energy of Christianity in regen-
erating men,c was a proof that He who was its
spring was more than man (ii. 79).
s Seen, (or example, m one like St Paul, of whom
took no notto (U 63).
OBIGENES
123
In the third and following books Celsus appears
in his own person. He first attaoks Christianity
as being, like Judaism, originally a revolution ary
system, based upon an idle faith in legends no
more worthy of credence than those of Greece
(iii. 1-43) ; and then he paints it in detail as a
religion of threats and promises, appealing only
to the ignorant and the sinful, unworthy of wise
men, and, in fact, not addressed to them, or even
excluding them (iii. 44-81). Here again Origen
has an easy victory. He has no difficulty in
shewing that no real parallel can be established
between the Greek heroes (iii. 22), or, as Celsus
had ventured to suggest, Antinous (iii. 36 ff.)
and Christ. On the other side he can reply with
the power of a life-long experience, that while the
message of the gospel is universal and divine in
its universality, " education is a way to virtue,"
a help towards the knowledge of God (iii. 45,
49, 58, 74), contributory, but not essentially
supreme. But he rightly insists on placing the
issue as to its claims in the moral and not in the
intellectual realm. Christians are the proof of
their creed. They are visibly transformed in
character : the ignorant are proved wise, sinners
are made holy (iii. 51, 64, 78 ff.).
The fourth and fifth books are in many respects
the most interesting of all. In these Origen meets
Celsus' attack upon that which is the central
idea of Christianity, and indeed of Biblical reve-
lation, the Coming of God. This necessarily
includes the discussion of the Biblical view of
man's relation to God and nature. The conten-
tions of Celsus are that there can be no sufficient
cause and no adequate end for " a coming of God "
(iv. 1-28) : that the account of God's dealings
with men in the Old Testament is obviously in-
credible (iv. 29-50) : that nature is fixed, even
as to the amount of evil (iv. 62), and that man
is presumptuous in claiming a superiority over
what he calls irrational animals (iv. 54-99). In
especial he dwells on the irrationality of the
belief of a coming of God to judgment (v. 1-24) ;
and maintains that there is a divine order in the
distribution of the world among different nations,
in which the Jews have no prerogative (v. 25-50).
On all grounds therefore, he concludes, the claims
of Christianity to be a universal religion, based
on the coming of God to earth, are absurd. In
treating these arguments Origen had a more
arduous work to achieve than he had hitherto-
accomplished. The time had not then come-
probably it has not come yet — when such far-
reaching objections could be completely met.
And Origen was greatly embarrassed by his want
of that historic sense which is essential to the
apprehension of the order of the divine revela-
tions. His treatment of the Old Testament nar-
ratives is unsatisfactory; and it is remarkable
that he does not apply his own views on the
unity of the whole plan of being, as grasped by
man, in partial explanation at least of the present
mysteries of life. They underlie indeed all that
he says ; and much that he urges in detail is ot
great weight, as his remarks upon the conception
of a divine coming (iv. 5 n% 13 f.), on the rational
dignity of man (iv. 13, 23 ff., 30), on the anthro-
popathic language of Scripture (iv. 71 ff.), on
the resurrection (v. 16 ff.).
In the last three books Origen enters again
upon surer ground. He examines Celsus' par-
allels to the teaching of Scripture on the know-
Digitized by
Google
124
OKIGENES
ledge of God and the kingdom of heaven, drawn
from Gentile sources (vi. 1-23); and after a
digression on a mystical diagnosis of some here-
tical sect, which Celsuj had brought forward as a
specimen of Christian teaching (vi. 24-40), he
passes to the true teaching on Satan and the Son
of God and creation (ri. 41-65), and unfolds more
in detail the doctrine of a spiritual revelation
through Christ (vi. 66-81). This leads to a vindi-
cation of the Old Testament prophecies of Christ
(vii. 1-17), of the compatibility of the two dispen-
sations (vii. 18-26), and of the Christian idea of
the future life (vii. 27-40). Celsus proposed to
point Christians to some better way, but Origen
shews that he has failed : the purity of Christians
puts to shame the lives of other men (vii. 41-61).
The remainder of the treatise is occupied with
arguments bearing upon the relations of Christi-
anity to popular worship and civil duties. Celsus
urged that the "demons," the gods of polytheism,
might justly claim some worship, as having been
entrusted with certain offices in the world (rii.
•62-viii. 32) ; that the circumstances of life de-
mand reasonable conformity to the established
worship, which includes what is true in the
Christian faith (viii. 33-68); that civil obedience
is paramount (viii. 69-75). Origen replies in
detail ; and specially he shews that the worship
of one God is the essence of true worship (viii.
12 f.); that Christianity has a consistent cer-
tainty of belief, with which no strange opinions
can be put into comparison (viii. 53 ff.); that
Christians do, in the noblest sense, support the
civil powers by their lives, by their prayers, by
their organization (viii. 75).
The spirit of the arguments on both sides is,
it will be seen, essentially modern : in the mode
of treatment there is much that is characteristic
of the age in which the writers lived. Two
points of very different nature will especially
strike the student. The first is the peculiar
stress which Origen, in common with other early
writers, and not with them only, lays upon iso-
lated passages of the prophets and of the Old
Testament generally : the second, the unques-
tioning belief which he, in common with Celsus,
Accords to the claims of magic and augury (i. 6,
•67 ; iv. 92 f. ; vii. 67 ; viii. 58). But when every
deduction has been made, it would not be easy to
{>oint to a discussion of the claims of Christianity
more comprehensive or more rich in pregnant
thought. Among early apologies it has no rival.
The constant presence of a real antagonist gives
unflagging vigour to the debate ; and the con-
scious power of Origen lies in the appeal which
he could make to the Christian life as the one
unanswerable proof of the Christian faith (com p.
Proof. 2 ; i. 27, 67 «./.).
In addition to the passages of the treatise
which have been already noticed, there are many
others of great interest, which are worthy of
study apart from the context. Such are Origen's
remarks on the spirit of controversy (vii. 46) ;
on the moral power of Christianity, its univer-
sality, and its fitness for man (ii. 64 ; iii. 28, 40,
54, 62 ; iv. 26 ; vii. 17, 35, 42, 59) ; on fore-
knowledge (ii. 19 ff.) ; on the anthropomorphism
of Scripture (vi. 60 ff.); on the beauty of the
ideal hope of the Christian (iii. 81) ; on the ideal
of worship (viii. 17 f. ; vii. 44) ; on the divisions
of Christians (iii. 12 f. ; v. 61); on spiritual
fellowship (viii. 64) ; on future unity (viii. 72).
ORIGENES
Compare, in addition to the general writers on
Origen —
Aube, B.. La poiimique paienne a la Jin du
lime Stfcfc, Paris, 1878.
Keim. Th., Cdtut' wahru Wort . . . Zurich. 1873.
Pelagaud, E.. EtiuU tur Cdst . . . Paris. 1878.
Lagrange (F.), Abbe, La Ilaivm ct la Foi ...
Paris, 1856.
Kind (A.), TtLedogit u. Jfaturalinuu . . . Jena.
1815.
D. Practical Works.
On Prater.
Delarue, 1. 195-273.
Lommatxsch, xvll. 79 ff.
Origen's essay on prayer was addressed to
Ambrosius and Tatiana (AiAo/taOloraroi xal
yrriai&Tarot 4» S*oat$tta aS*\<poi, c. 33), in
answer to inquiries which they proposed to him
as to the efficacy, the manner, the subject, the
circumstances of prayer. No writing of Origen
is more free from his characteristic faults, or
more full of beautiful thoughts. He examines
first the meaning and use of eVxh (§ 3), and the
objections urged against the efficacy of prayer,
that God foreknows the future, and that all
things take place according to His will (§ 5).
Divine foreknowledge does not, he points oat,
take away man's responsibility : the moral atti-
tude of prayer is in itself a sufficient blessing
upon it (§§ 6 ff.). Prayer establishes an active
communion between Christ and the angels in
heaven (§§ 10 f.) ; and the duty of prayer is
enforced by the example of Christ and the saints
(§§ 13 f.). Prayer must be addressed to God
only, " our Father in heaven," and not to Christ
the Son as apart from the Father, but to the
Father through Him (§ 15). The proper objects
of prayer are things heavenly, to which " the
shadow " — things earthly — may follow or not
(§§ 16 f.). These general reflections are illus-
trated by a detailed exposition of the Lord's
Prayer, as given by St. Matthew, with reference
also to the corresponding prayer in St. Lnke
(§§ 18-30). The last chapters (§§ 31-33) give
interesting details as to the appropriate disposi-
tion, the attitude, the place, the direction (xAfpa),
the topics of prayer. He who prays will by
preference, Origen says, pray standing, with
eyes and hands uplifted, and turned to the East.
The observations on the habit of prayer (§ 8),
on the sympathy of the dead with the living
(§ 11), on life as " one great unbroken prayer **
(§ 12, pla trvvairTopivTi peydAq «&x4)> on the
preparation for prayer (§ 31), ore of singular
beauty. Elsewhere Origen dwells on the power
of the prayers of the church (in Bom. x. § 15),
even for heathen benefactors (Comm. Ser. in Matt.
§ 120).
The essay is found complete in one MS. only,
Cod. Holmientis of Trin. Coll. Cambridge. Delarue
found the last chapters (31-end) in a Colbertine
MS., and had the advantage of a collation of the
Trinity MS. by the skilful hand of J. Walker,
with Bentley's conjectural emendations.
The Exhortation to Martyrdom (els pap-
riptor Trporptwriicbs h&yoiy.
Delarue, 1. 273-310.
Lommatzscb, xx. 227 ff.
In the persecution of Maximinui (235-237),
Ambrosius andThcoctetus,apresbyter of Caesarea,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
OKIGENES
-were thrown into prison. Origen addressed them
in a book written from his heart : as a boy and
is an old man he looked face to face on martyr-
dom. Their sufferings, he tells them, are a proof
of their maturity (e. 1), and in some sense the
price of future blessedness (2), for which man's
earthly frame is unfitted (3 ff.). The denial of
Christ, on the other hand, is the most grievous
wrong to God (6 ff.). Believers are indeed pledged
to endurance, which will be repaid with un-
speakable joys (12 ff.). Moreover they are en-
couraged in their trials by the thought of the
unseen spiritual witnesses by whom they are
surrounded in the season of their outward suffer-
ings (18 ff.), and by the examples of those who
hare already triumphed (22 ff.). By martyrdom
man can shew his gratitude to God (28 f.), and
at the same time receive afresh the forgiveness
of baptism, offering, as a true priest, the sacrifice
of himself (30 ; conip. Horn, vii. in Jvd. 2). So
he conquers demons (32). And the predictions
of the Lord shew that he is not forgotten (34 ff.),
but rather that some counsel of love is fulfilled
for him through affliction (39 ff.), such as we
can represent to ourselves by the union of the
soul with God when it is freed from the distrac-
tions of life (47 ff.). Perhaps, too, it may be
that the blood of martyrs may have some virtue
to gain others, for the truth (50, rix a r V T '^V
tuuort t«c /laprvpw kyopa&fiffovrai rtvts i comp.
Horn, in Num. x. 2 ; c. Cels. viii. 44).
E. Critical Writings [Hexapla].
F. Letters.
(Eleven " books " of Letters in all, two books
of letters in defence of his works. — II. C.)
Delaine, i. 3-32.
tommitMrh, xvtl. 1 ft*.
Eusebius relates that he had made a collection
of Origen'a letters, containing more than a hun-
dred (J5T. E. vi. 36, 2). Of these two only re-
main entire, those to Julius Africanus and Gre-
gory, and of the remainder the fragments and
notices are most meagre. The famous sentence
from his letter to his father has been already
quoted (p. 98). In another fragment (Dela-
rue, i. p. 3, from Suidas, s. v. 'fiprytVqs) he
gives a lively picture of the incessant labour
which the zeal of Ambrosins imposed upon him.
A third fragment of great interest, preserved by
Eusebius, contains a defence of his study of heathen
philosophy (Enseb. ff. E. vi. 19). Another im-
portant passage of a letter addressed to friends
at Alexandria, in which he complains of the mis-
representations of those who professed to give
account* of controversies which they had held
with him, has been preserved in a Latin transla-
tion by Jerome and Kufinus (Delsrue, i. p. 5).
Of the many letters which he wrote in defence
of his orthodoxy, including one to Fabianus,
bishop of Rome (Enseb. ff. E. vi. 36 ; comp. Hier.
Ep. 41 (65) \ nothing remains. In like manner
his letters to Beryllns (Hier. de Tir. HI. 60), to
his scholar Trypho (to*. 57), to the emperor Philip
and his wife (or mother) (Euseb. ff. E. vi. 36 ;
Bier. de Vir. 111. 54), have also perished.
To Oregon/ of Neo-Caesarea.
Gregory was as yet undecided as to his pro-
fession when this letter was written (c. 236-7 ;
comp. pp. 101 f.). Origen expresses his ear-
nest desire that his "son" will devote all his
knowledge of general literature and the fruits
OEIGENES
125
of wide discipline to Christianity (c. 1). He
illustrates this use of secular learning by the
" spoiling of the Egyptians " (c. 2) ; and con-
cludes his appeal by a striking exhortation to>
Gregory to study Scripture (irpoVex* rp rclr
Btlay ypaQav drayrt&afC iwa wooVexc): "He
that said knock . . . and seek . . . said also, Ask
and it shall be given " (c. 3). Comp. Draseke,
Her Brief d. Orig. an Cfregorios . . . Jahrb. f. Fro-
test. Theol. 1881 1.
The letter to Julius Africanus has been already
noticed (p. 122).
G. The Pmlocalia.
Some notice must be given of this admirable
collection of extracts from Origen'a writings, to
which the preservation of many fragments of
the Greek text is due. It was made, as it ap-
pears, by Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil ; and
the former sent it to Theodosius bishop of
Tyana, about a.d. 382, with a letter (Greg. Naz.
Ep. cxv.) in which he says: "That you may
have some memorial from us, and at the same
time from the holy Basil, we have sent you a
small volume of the 'Choice thoughts' of
Origen (vvktIov tjjj 'Clpiyivows +iAo/raA(ai), con-
taining extracts of passages serviceable for
scholars (rots <pi\o\iyou). Be pleased to accept
it, and to give us some proof of its usefulness with
the aid of industry and the Spirit."
The Philocalia is of great interest, not only
from the intrinsic excellence of the passages
which it contains, but as shewing what Catholic
saints held to be characteristic thoughts in
Ori gen's teaching.
The book consists of xxvii. chapters, which
treat of the following subjects :
1. On the Inspiration of divine Scripture-
How Scripture should be read and understood.
What is the reason (\6yos) of its obscurity, and
of that in it which is impossible or irrational
according to the letter (Kara t6 far6v). — Long
extracts from the fourth book on First Prin-
ciples, § 1-23 ; an extract from the Com-
mentary on Psalm 1. (li.) ; an extract from the
Second Homily on Leviticus.
2. That divine Scripture is slosed (KeKkturrai)
and sealed. — Extracts from the Book on Ps. i.
3. Why the Inspired Books [of the Old Test.]
are twenty-two. — Extract from the same Book
on Ps. i.
4. Of the solecism and poor style of Scripture.
— Extracts from the Fourth Book on St. John.
5. What is much-speaking, and what are
" many books ; " and that inspired Scripture is
one Book. — Extracts from the Fifth Book on,
St. John.
6. That divine Scripture is one instrument of
God, perfect and fitted (for its work). — Extract
from the Second Book on St. Matthew.
7. On the special character (rov Ittiuatos) of
the persons of divine Scripture. — Extracts from
(1) the early Book on Canticles, (2) the Fourth
Homily on the Acts.
8. On the duty of not endeavouring to correct
the inaccurate (aohoiKoettrj) phrases of Scripture
and those which are not capable of being under-
stood according to the letter, seeing that they
contain deep propriety of thought (ro\v to rqr
Stavoias lueiXovSov) for those who can under-
stand. — Extract from the Commentary on Ilosea.
9. What is the reason that divine Scripture
often uses the same term in different significa-
Digitized by
Google
126
0BIGENE8
tions, and (that) in the same place. — Extract
from the Ninth Book on the Romans.
10. On passages in divine Scripture which
seem to involve some stone of stumbling or rock
of offence. — Extract from the Thirty-ninth
Homily on Jeremiah.
11. That we must seek the nourishment sup-
plied by all inspired Scripture, and not turn
from the passages (^irref) troubled by heretics
with ill-advised difficulties (Sv<r<pijiu>ts Iwaxo-
pilfftaiy), nor slight them, but make use of them
also, being kept from the confusion which
attaches to unbelief. — Extracts from the Twen-
tieth Book on Ezekiel.
12. That he should not faint in the reading
of divine Scripture who does not understand the
<lark riddles and parables it contains. — Extract
from the Twentieth Homily on Joshua.
13. When and to whom the lessons of philo-
sophy are serviceable to the explanation of the
sacred Scriptures, with Scripture testimony. —
Letter to Gregory.
14. That it is most necessary for those who
wish not to fail of the truth in understanding
the divine Scriptures to know the logical prin-
ciples or preparatory discipline (uaHjpara tjroi
■Kfortult<i)uxT*) which apply to their use, with-
out which they cannot set forth the exact mean-
ing of the thoughts expressed as they should
do. — Extract from the Third Book on Genesis.
15. A reply to the Greek philosophers who
disparage the poverty of the style of the divine
Scriptures, and maintain that the noble truths
in Christianity have been better expressed among
the Greeks ; and who further say that the Lord a
person was ill-favoured ; with the reason of the
different forms of the Word. — Extracts from the
Sixth and Seventh Books against Ceisus,'' c. Cels.
vi. 1-5 (with a fragm. from i. 2) ; vii. 58-61 ;
vi. 75-77 (with fragments from i.42, 68 ; ii. 15;
and one of uncertain source, p. 89 L.).
16. Of those who malign Christianity on ac-
count of the heresies is the Church. — Extract
from the Third Book against Ceisus (c. Cels. iii.
12-14, with fragments from v. 61, 63).
17. A reply to those philosophers who aay
that it makes no difference if we call Him who
is God over all by the name Zeus, current among
the Greeks, or by that which is used by Indians or
Egyptians. — Extracts from the Third and Fifth
Books against Ceisus (c. Cels. i. 21-25 ; v. 45, 46 ;
iv. 48 fragm.).
18. A reply to the Greek philosophers who
profess universal knowledge, and blame the
simple faith (to irt^iraaror tjjj xlareas) of
the mass of Christians, and charge them with
preferring folly to wisdom in life ; and who
say that no wise or educated man has become a
disciple of Jesus .... Extracts from the
First and Third Books against Ceisus (c. Cels. i.
9-11 i 19b, 20; 12, 13; 62b-66; iii. 44-54;
73b, 74).
19. That our faith in the Lord has nothing in
common with the irrational, superstitious faith
of the Gentiles .... And in reply to those
who say, How do we think that Jesus is God
when He had a mortal body ?— Extracts from the
» It will be noticed that the description of the sources
of the extracts given in the book Is not always exact or
correct.
OBIGENEB
same (Third) Book against Ceisus (c Cels. ill
38-i2 a).
20. A reply to those who say that the whole
world was made, not for man, but for irrational
creatures . . . who live with less toil than men . . .
and foreknow the future. Wherein is an argu-
ment against transmigration and on augury . . .
— Extract from the Fourth Book against Ceisus
(c. Cels. iv. 73b-76a, 78-99).
21. Of free-will, with an explanation of the
sayings of Scripture which seem to deny it. —
Extract from the Third Book of First Principle*.
22. What is the dispersion of the rational or
human souls indicated under a veil in the build-
ing of the Tower, and the confusion of tongues . . .
— Extract from the Fifth Book against Ceisus
(c Cels. v. 25-28a, 35, 28b-32).
23. On Fate, and the reconciliation of divine
foreknowledge with human freedom; and how
the stars do not determine the affairs of men,
but only indicate them . . . Extracts from (i.) the
Third Book on Genesis, (ii.) the Second Book
against Ceisus (c. Cels. ii. 20b).
24. Of matter, that it is not uncreated (jkyinni-
toi) or the cause of evil. — From the Seventh Book
of the Evangelical Preparation of Eusebius (Euseb.
Praep. Evang. vii. 22).'
25. That the separation to a special work
(Rom. i. 1) from foreknowledge does not destroy
free-will. — Extract from the First Book on the
Romans.
26. Of the question as to things good and
evil . . . Extract from the Book on Ps. iv.
27. On the phrase : " He hardened Pharaoh's
heart." — Extracts from unnamed books ; and from
notes on Exodus, and from the Second Book on
Canticles.
The MSS. of the Philocalia are numerous. One
at Venice (No. 47) is referred to the 1 1th century.
A MS. at New College Oxford is of interest as
having been presented to the Society by Cardinal
Pole.*
It does not fall within the scope of this article
to notice in detail the works which have been
falsely attributed to Origen. Of these the most
important are :
The Dialogue against the Marcionites (AidXoyos
Kara VLapKiuviffr&r tj v*p\ rrjs tls 9tbv op&Sjr
x/ot«o>i).
Delarue, i. 800 ff.
Iiommatzsch, xvl. 2*6 ff.l
< The passage is quoted by Eusebius from " Maxi-
ma*, a distinguished man." A large part of It Is found
In the "Dialogue of Adamantine," falsely attributed to
Origen (Delarue, 1, 843 if. ; Lommatsscb, xvl. 341 ff.).
Corap. Konth, Hell. Sacrat, ii. 11 ff.
It is by no means unlikely that this section was added
to the text afterwards. The concluding note ears that the
passage is also found iv ry 'Qptyfoovt vpbc MapKUMterav,
i.e., the Dialogue of Adamantine, which they could hardly
have attributed to him.
* See also J ix. note, p. 140.
> There is a MS. of the Dialogue in the Gale collection
(O. 4.41) with the following note : " Collates est hie Codex
cum cod. ms. qui servatur in Bibl. Trtu.GolL Camb. Krat
autem Is descriptus ex cod. ms°. Regfae BlbL Gall. H.
collatns cum alio ejusdem Blbliothecae libro ms"." At
the end is the colophon : " Scrlpslt Petrns Goldmannus
Scotus In blbliotheca Bodlelana anno redemptae salutis
1(513." A loose sheet of conjectural emendations is
Included In the same volume.
Digitized by
Google
OBIGENE8
PhSosophumena, a fragment of » treatise
"against all heresies."
Delaine, t. 812 ff.
Lommauach, xxt. W» ff.
Commentaries on Job (three books), written
after 311.
Delarae, 1L 850 B.
Lommattsch, xvL 1 ft*.
Phihoopfntmena, published under the name of
Origen from a Paris MS. by E. Miller, Oxford,
1851, bat now generally attributed to Hippo-
lytus.
It is probable that the Lexicon of Hebrew
names, published under the name of Origen by
Martianay (Hieron. iii. pp. 1203 ff., ed. Migne),
has at least an Origenian foundation, and the
interpretations deserve comparison with those
scattered through Origen's Greek works. Comp.
Fabricius, Bill. Oraeca, vii. 226 f. a
V. View of Chkistias Lbpe.
The picture of Christian life which is drawn
in Origen's writings, is less complete and vivid
than might have been expected. It represents
a society already sufficiently large, powerful,
and wealthy, to offer examples of popular vices.
Origen contrasts the Christians of his own day
with those of an earlier time, and pronounces
them unworthy to bear the name of " faithful "
(Ham. «n Jer. iv. 3; comp. m Matt. xvii. 24).
Some who were Christians by birth were unduly
proud of their descent (in Matt. xr. § 26).
Others retained their devotion to pagan super-
stitions — astrology, auguries, necromancy (in
Josh. v. 6, rii. 4; comp. in Matt. xiii. § 6)
and secular amusements {Bom. in Lev. ix. 9,
xi. 1). There were many spiritual " Gibeonites "
among them, men who gave liberal offerings to
the churches but not their lives (in Josh. x.
1, 3). The attendance at church services was
infrequent (in Josh. i. 7 ; Horn, in Sen. x. 1, 3).
The worshippers were inattentive (Horn, in Ex.
xiii 2) and impatient (Horn, in Jud. vi. 1).
Commercial dishonesty (in Matt. xv. 13) and
hardness (Bel. in Job. p. 341 L.) had to be re-
proved.
Such faults call out the preacher's denuncia-
tions at all times. Origen deals with an evil
more characteristic of his age when he dwells on
the growing ambition of the clergy. High places
in the hierarchy were now sought by favour and
by gifts (Horn, in Num. xxii. 4 ; comp. in Matt.
xvi. 22; Comm. Set. §§ 9, 10, 12). Prelates
endeavoured to nominate their kinsmen as their
successors (id. xxii. 4) ; and shrank from boldly
rebuking vice lest they should lose the favour
The MS. in the Library or Trinity College which is
referred to Is marked B. S, 10. The colophon Is: "In
gratlain praestantlselml et reverendlstrtiul vlri Isaacl
VoasH I. V J>. descrlbebun Lntetlae PalMoram, Decembri
1(41, ego Claudius Samnios." The MS. was given by
Toss to H. Tborndlke.
■ One apocryphal Homily On Mary Magdalene
deserves to be noticed on account of lis wide popularity.
Chancer says that :
M He made also, gon is a grete while,
Orlgenes upon the Maudelaine."
Legend of Good Women, 437.
But the La m entatio n of Marie Mag&t&eiete, which Is
otteii printed among bis works. Is generally held to be
spurious.
OEIGENEri
127
of the people (in Josh. vii. 6), using the powers
of discipline from passion rather than with judg-
ment (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 14), so that their
conduct already caused open scandal (Horn, in
Num. ii. 17). They too often forgot humility at
their ordination (Horn, in Esech. ix. 2). They
despised the counsel of men of lower rank, " not
to speak of that of a layman or a Gentile"
(Horn, m Ex. xi. 6).
Origen in particular denounces the pride
of the leading men in the Christian society,
which already exceeded that of Gentile tyrants,
especially in the more important cities (in Matt.
xvi. 8).
It is natural that a public teacher should
dwell on vices rather than on virtues, but
Origen's language must not be forgotten when
an estimate is made of the early church.
Yet, according to Origen, traces still remained
in his time of the miraculous endowments of the
apostolic church, which he had himself seen (c.
Cels. ii. 8, iii. 24; in Joh. torn. xx. 28, %xyn ko!
kelwucra; comp. c. Ceis. i. 2). Exorcism was
habitually practised (Horn, in Jos. xxiv. 1).
Demons were expelled, many cures were wrought,
future events were foreseen by Christians through
the help of the Spirit (c. Cels. i. 46 ; comp. i. 25,
iii. 36, viii. 58) ; and he says that the "name of
Jesus " was sometimes powerful against demons,
even when named by bad men (c. Cels. i. 6;
comp. v. 45).
But this testimony must be taken in conjunc-
tion with the belief in the power of magic which
he shared with his contemporaries. He appeals
unhesitatingly to the efficacy of incantations
made with the use of sacred names (c Cels. i. 22,
iv. 33 ff.; comp. m Matt. Comm. Ser. § 110),
and otherwise according to secret rules (c. Cels.
i. 24 ; Horn, in Num. xiii. 4 ; in Jos. xx. fragm.
ap. Philoc. c xii.)
Origen says little of the relations of Christians
to other bodies in the state. The interpenetra-
tion of common life by paganism necessarily
excluded believers from most public ceremonies,
and from much social intercourse. The same
influence made them ill-disposed towards art,
which was for the most part devoted to the old
religion (c. Cels. iii. 56 ; De Orat. 17), and had
not as yet found any place in connexion with
Christian worship (c. Cels. vii. 63 ff.). And it is
remarkable that while Origen was pre-eminently
distinguished for his vindication of the claims of
reason (c. Cels. i. 13) and of Gentile philosophy,
as being the ripest fruit of man's natural powers
(comp. Horn, in Qen. xiv. 3 ; in Ex. xi. 6) and
not their corruption (Tertullian), he still very
rarely refers to the literature of secular wisdom
in his general writings as ancillary to revelation.
He even in some cases refers its origin to " the
princes of this world " (De Princ. iii. 3, 2) ; and
in an interesting outline of the course of Gentile
education, he remarks that it may only accumu-
late a wealth of sins (Horn. iii. in Ps. xxxvi. 6).
On the other hand, his directions for dealing with
unbelievers are marked by the truest courtesy
(Horn, in Ex. iv. 9) ; and in spite of his own
courageous enthusiasm, he counselled prudence
in times of persecution (in Matt. x. 23). Oc
casions for such self-restraint arose continually.
For Origen notices the popular judgment, active
from the time of Tertullian to that of Augustine,
which referred " wars, famines, and pestilences "
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
128
0BIGENE8
to the spread of the faith (in Matt. Comm. Ser.
§ 39). In especial he dwells upon the animosity
of the Jews, who " would rather see a criminal .
acquitted than convicted by the evidence of a
Christian" (id. § 16). Of the extension of
Christianity he speaks in general terms, rhe-
torically rather than exactly. It was not
preached among all the Ethiopians, especially
" those beyond the river," or among the Chinese.
"What," he continues, "shall we say of the
Britons or Germans by the Ocean, Dacians, Sar-
matians, Scythians, very many of whom have not
yet heard the word?" (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 39).
Vet elsewhere he reckons inhabitants of Britain
and Mauritania among those who held the com-
mon faith (Horn, m Luc. vi.).
As a general rule Christians declined public
offices, not from any lack of loyalty, but as
feeling that they could serve their country
better through their own society (c. Cels. viii.
73, 75).
The church, according to Origen, is the whole
body of believers animated by Christ, who, as
the Divine Logos, stirs each member, so that
without Him it does nothing (c. Cels. vi. 48).
In the widest sense it has existed even from the
Creation (in Cant. ii. p. 418 L.). Such a view,
which makes the church coextensive with the
existence of divine fellowship, carries with it
the corollary, that " without the church there is
no salvation " (Horn, in Jos. iii. 6). Origen, as
has been seen, shewed practically his respect for
the see of Rome, but he recognised no absolute
supremacy in St. Peter (in Matt. xii. 11). He
held indeed that he had a certain pre-eminence
(in Joh. torn, xxxii. 5), and that the church was
founded on him (Bom. in Ex. v. 4), but every
disciple of Christ, he affirms, holds in a true
sense the same position (Comm. in Matt. xii. 10).
In this connexion it may be noticed that
Origen lays great stress upon the importance
of right belief (in Matt. torn. xii. 23 ; Comm. Ser.
in Matt. § 33 ; De Orat. 29). As a young man
he refused every concession to a misbeliever in
the house of his benefactress (Euseb. S. E. vi.
2). In later years he laboured successfully to
win back those who had fallen into error. But
none the less his sense of the infinite greatness
of the truth made him tolerant (c. Cels. v. 63).
He ventured to say that varieties of belief were
due to the vastness of its object (c. Cels. iii. 12);
and his discussion of the question, Who is a
heretic? is full of interest (Fragm. in Ep. ad
Tit.).
Casual notices scattered through Origen's
writings, give a fairly complete view of the
religious observances of his time. He speaks
generally of stated times of daily prayer, " not
less than three " (De Orat. 12), of the days which
they kept — " the Lord's days (com p. Horn, in Ex.
vii. 5 ; in Num. xxiii. 4), Fridays, Easter, Pente-
cost " (c. Cels. viii. 22 ; comp. Horn, in Is. vi.
§ 2), — and of the Lenten, Wednesday, and Friday
fasts (Horn, in Lev. x. 2). Some still added Jewish
rites to the celebration of Easter (Horn, in Jer.
xii. 13), and other traces remained of Judaizing
practices (Horn, in Jer. x. § 2). Jewish converts,
Origen says without reserve, " have not left
their national law " (c. Cels. il. 1, comp. § 3) ;
though he lays down that Christ forbade His
disciples to be circumcised (c. Cels. i. 22 ; comp.
v. 48). Christians however still abstained from
ORIGENES
" things strangled " (c. Cels. viii. 30), and from
meat that had been offered to idols (id. 24).
Outward forms had already made progress ; and
there were those whose religion consisted in
" bowing their head to priests, and in bringing
offerings to adorn the altar of the church"
(Horn, in Jos. x. 3).
Baptism was administered to infants, "in
accordance with apostolic tradition " (in Rom.
v. § 9, p. 397 L. ; Horn, m Lev. viii. § 3 ; in Luc
xiv.), in the name of the Holy Trinity (in Rom.
v. § 8, p. 383 L. ; * comp. in Joh. torn. vi. 17),
with the solemn renunciations " of the devil and of
his pomps, works, and pleasures " (Horn, in Num.
xii. 4)*. The unction (confirmation) does not
appear to have been separated from it (in Rom.
v. § 8, p. 381 : " omnes baptizati in aquis istis
visibilibus et in chrismato visibili "). As for the
gift of the Holy Spirit, which comes only from
Christ, Origen held that it was given according
to His righteous will : " Not all who are bathed
in water are forthwith bathed in the Holy
Spirit" (Horn, in Num. iii. 1). Compare also
Sel. in Gen. ii. 15 ; Horn, in Luc. xxi. ; De /Vine
i. 2 ; and for the two sacraments, Horn, in Num.
vii. 2. Adult converts were divided into
different classes and trained with great care
(c. Cels. iii. 51).
Of the Holy Communion Origen speaks not
unfrequently. but with some reserve (Horn, in
Lev. x. 10; in Jos. iv. 1). It is remarkable
that he does not mention it when he discusses
the various modes of remission of sin (Horn, in
Lev. ii. 4). The passages which give his views
most fully are in Joh. xxxii. § 16 ; in Matt. xi.
§ 14 ; in Matt. Comm. Ser. §§ 85 f. ; Horn, in
Qen. xvii. 8 ; in Ex. xiii. § 3 ; in Lev. ix. 10 ;
in Num. xvi. 9. Comp. c. Cels. viii. 33, 57 ;
Horn, in Jud. vi. 2 ; Horn. ii. in Ps. xxxvii. 6 ;
Sel. in Ps. p. 365 L.
The ruling thought of his interpretation ia
suggested by John vi. : " corpus Dei Verbi aut
sanguis quid aliud esse potest nisi verbum quod
nutrit et verbum quod lactificat ?" (in Matt.
Comm. Ser. § 85) ; " bibere autem dicimur san-
guinem ChrUti non solum sacramentorum ritu
sed et cum sermones eius recipimus in quibus
vita consistit, sicut et ipse dicit, X'erba quae
locutus sum spiritus et vita est " (Horn, in Num.
xvi. § 9 ; comp. xxiii. § 6). The passage which
is often quoted to shew "a presence of Christ in
the sacrament extra usum," indicates nothing
more than the reverence which naturally belongs
to the consecrated elements (consecratum munus,
Horn, in Ex. xiii. 3).
The kiss of peace was still given " at the time
of the mysteries" (in Cant. i. p. 331 L.), "after
prayers " (in Horn. x. § 33) ; and the love-feast
("AydVn) was sufficiently notorious to form a
subject of Celsus's attacks (c. Cels. i. 1); but the
practice of " feet-washing," if it ever prevailed,
was now obsolete (in Joh. xxxii. § 7 ; Horn, in Is.
vi. § 3). It may be added that the use made of
■ In commenting on Rom. vi. 3 In this passage he
meets the question which may be asked, how It is that
8t Paul Bpeaks of baptism M in the name of Christ Jesus,"
" while baptism 1b not held to be lawful unless under the
name of the Trinity.**
In Horn, in Execk. vi. 6. there appears to be a re-
ference to the use of salt and milk and the white robe.
Comp. in Rim. v. } 8 I. e
Digitized byV^jOOQlC
ORIGENES
James t. 14, in Horn, in Lev. ii. 4, does not give
any support, as has been often affirmed, to the
practice of extreme unction.
The treatise On Prayer gives, as has been
seen, a vivid picture of the mode and attitude of
prayer. It was usual to turn to the east (De
Oral. 31 ; Horn, in Num. v. § 1). Standing and
kneeling are both recognised (De Orat. I. c. ;
Horn, m Num. xi. § 9 ; comp. m Sam. Horn.
i. § 9). Forms of prayer were used (Horn, in
Jer. xiv. § 14) ; and prayers were made in the
vernacular language of each country (c. Celt.
viii. 31).
Origen frequently refers to confession as made
to men and not to God only (Horn, in Luc. xvii. ;
De Orat. 28 ; Horn. ii. in Ps. xxxvii. § 6) ; and
reckons penitence completed by such confession
to a " priest of the Lord " as one of the modes
for forgiveness of sins {Horn. ii. in Lev. § 4).
At the same time he speaks elsewhere of public
confession (l(ofio?viyvois) to God as efficacious
(Horn, i. in Ps. xxxvi. § 5), a form of penitence
to be adopted after wise advice (Horn. ii. m Ps.
xxxvii. § 6) ; and while he adopts the common
but false view of Matt. xvi. 18, he supposes that
the efficacy of " the power of the keys " depends
upon the character of those who exercise it (in
Matt. torn. xii. § 14).
Discipline was enforced by exclusion from
common prayer (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 89);
and for more serious offences penitence was
admitted once only (Bom. in Let. xr. § 2).
Compare also what is said on " sin unto death "
(Bom. in Lev. xi. 2). Those who had offended
grievously after baptism were looked upon as
incapable of holding office (c Celt. iii. 51).
The threefold ministry is noticed as if it were
universally recognised : and Origen speaks of
presbyters as priests, and deacons as Levites
(Ham. in Jerem. xii. 3). The people were to be
present at the ordination of priests (Bom. m
Lev. vii. 3). At the same time he recognises
emphatically the priesthood of all Christians
who "have been anointed with the sacred
chrism " (Bom. in Lev. ix. 9 ; comp. Bom. in
Num. v. 3; in Jo*, vii. 2; comp. Exh. ad
Martyr. 30).
Widows are spoken of also as having a definite
place in the organization of the church (Horn.
us Is. vi. § 3 ; Bom. in Luc. xvii.) ; and yet it
does not appear that they were combined in
any order (in Sam. x. §§ 17, 20).
As yet no absolute rule was made as to the
celibacy of the clergy. Origen himself was
inclined to support it by his own judgment
(Ham. m Lev. vi. f 6). " No bishop, however,
or presbyter or deacon or widow could marry a
second time " (Bom. in Luc. xvii.) : such Origen
held to be in a second class, not " of the church
without spot " (I. c ; but comp. note on 1 Cor.
vii. 8). It was a sign of the difficulties of the
social position of Christians that some " rulers
of the church" allowed a woman to marry
again while her husband (presumably a Gentile
who had abandoned her) was still living (in
Matt. torn. xiv. § 23).
Origen's own example and feeling were
strongly in favour of a strict and continent life
(comp. c. Gels. vii. 48; Bom. in Gen. t. 4),
while he condemns false asceticism (in Matt.
Comm. Ser. $10). He enforces the duty of
systematic almsgiving (id. § 61) ; and maintains
' CHRIST. BIOOR.— VOL. IV.
OHIGENES
129
that the law of offering the firstfruits to God,
that is to the priests, is one of the Mosaic pre-
cepts which is of perpetual obligation (Bom. in
Num. xi. 1 ; comp. c. Cels. viii. 34). Usury is
forbidden (Bam. iii. m Ps. xxxvi. § 11). The
rule as to food laid down in Acts xv. 29, was
as has been seen, still observed (m Rom. ii. § 13,
p. 128 L. ; c. Cels. viii. 30).
The reverence of Christian burial is noticed
(Bom. in Lev. iii. § 3 ; o. Cels. viii. 30). Military
service, according to Origen, was unlawful for
Christians (c. Cels. v. 33, viii. 73), though he
seems to admit exceptions to the rule (id. iv. 82).
VI. Origen as critic and interpreter.'
Origen regarded the Bible as the source and
rule of truth (Bom. in Jer. i. § 7). Christ is
" the Truth," and they who are sure of this seek
spiritual knowledge from His very words and
teaching alone, given not only during His earthly
presence, but through Moses and the prophets
(De Princ. Praef. 1). The necessary points of
doctrine were, Origen held, comprised by the
apostles in a simple creed handed down by tradi-
tion (De Princ. Praef. ii.), but the fuller exhibi-
tion of the mysteries of the gospel was to be
sought from the Scriptures. In this respect he
made no sharp division between the Old and New
Testaments. They must be treated as one body,
and we must be careful not to mar the unity of
the Spirit which exists throughout (in Joh. x. 13 ;
comp. De Princ. ii. 4). The divinity of the Old
Testament is indeed first seen through Christ
(De Princ. iv. 1, 6).
1. The Canon of Scripture. — In fixing the con-
tents of the collection of sacred books Origen
shews some indecision. In regard to the Old
Testament he found a serious difference between
the Hebrew Canon and the books which were
commonly found in the Alexandrine Greek
Bible. In his Commentary on the first Psalm
he gives a list of the canonical books (at
iySidevKoi filPKoi) according to the tradition
of the Hebrews, twenty-two in number (ap.
Euseb. B. E. vi. 25). In the enumeration the
Book of the Twelve (minor) Prophets is omitted
by the error of Eusebius or of his transcriber,
for it is necessary to make up the number ; and
the " Letter " (Baruch vi.) is added to Jeremiah,
because (apparently) it occupied that position in
Origen's copy of the LXX., for there is no evi-
dence that it was ever included in the Hebrew
Bible. The Books of the Maccabees, which
(1 Mace.) bore a Hebrew title, were not included
in the number (t(tt roirctv «Vrf).
Bat while Origen thus gives a primary place
to the books of the Hebrew Canon, he expressly
defended, in his letter to Africanus, the use
among Christians of the additions found in the
Alexandrine LXX. (comp. p. 122). He was un-
willing to sacrifice anything which was sanctioned
by custom and tended to edification. His own
practice reflects this double view. He never, as
far as we know, publicly expounded any of the
apocryphal books of the Old Testament, while he
habitually quotes them as having authority,
p In addition to the general works already referred to
the essay of J. J. Boohlnger (Argentor. 1829-30), Dt O.
allegorica S.S. interprttatumc may be noticed as Im-
partial and foil In detail. There Is another essay on the
subject by C. R. Hagenbach (Basil. 183.1)
K
Digitized by
Google
130
OBIGENES
though he frequently notices, while he does so,
that their authority was challenged.
So we find references to the Books of Maccabees
(De Princ. ii. 1, 5 ; in Joh. xiii. 57) ; to Baruch
{Horn, in Ex. vii. 2 ; Comm. in Bom. ii. § 7) ; to
Ecclesiasticus (in Joh. torn, xxxii. 14 ; Horn. ii. o»
Ps. 39, § 7) ; to Wisdom (in Joh. xxviii. 13, rfris
-rpoe-lnai; comp. torn, xx.4; De Prow, iv. 33);
to Tdbit (De Orat. 14 ; Comm. in Bom. viii. § 1 1) ;
to Judith (in Joh. vi. § 16); to the Additions to
Esther and to Daniel, in the letter to Africanus.
In addition to these books, which had a cer-
tain sanction in the church, Origen quotes also
the Book of Enoch (o. Cels. v. 55 ; De Princ. iv.
35 ; Horn, in Num. xxviii. 2), the Prayer of Joseph
(in Joh. ii. 25, tt tii rpotricTcu), the Assumption
of Moses (ffom. in Jos. ii. 1), and the Ascension
of Isaiah (De Princ. iii. 2, 1 ; Horn, in Jos. ii. 1 ;
comp. in Matt. t. x. 18) ; and it is probably to
books of this type that he refers in the interesting
remarks on "apocryphal " books in Proi. in Cant.
p. 325 L.
How far Origen was from any clear view of
the history of the books of the Old Testament
may be inferred from the importance which he
assigns to the tradition of Ezra's restoration of
their text from memory after the Babylonian
captivity (Set. in Jer. xi. p. 5 L. ; Set. m Ps. id.
p. 371).
His testimony to the contents of the New
Testament is more decided. Ho notices the
books which were generally acknowledged in the
church as possessing unquestionable authority ;
the Four Gospels [the Acts-'], 1 Peter, 1 John,
thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. To these he adds
the Apocalypse, for he seems to have been
unacquainted with its absence from the Syrian
Canon (ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 25). In another
passage, preserved only in the Latin translation
of Rufinus (Horn, in Jer. vii. 1), he enumerates
all the books of the received New Testament,
without addition or omission, as the trumpets
by which the walls of the spiritual Jericho are
to be overthrown (the Four Gospels, 1st and 2nd
Peter, Jamais, Jude, the Epistles and Apocalypse
of St. John, the Acts by St. Luke, fourteen Epistles
of St. Paul). This enumeration, though it can-
not be received without reserve, may represent
his popular teaching. In isolated notices he
speaks of the disputed books as received by some
but not by all (Epistle to tlie Hebrews, ap. Euseb.
ff. E. vi. 25 ; Ep. ad Afric. % 9 ; James t »"» Joh.
xix. 6 ; 2nd Peter, ffom. in Lev. iv. 4; Jude, in
Matt. torn. x. 17, xvii. 30); and it was according
to his spirit to accept, in a certain sense, whatever
tended to edification, though he appears to have
limited doctrinal authority to the acknowledged
books (Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 28).
In addition to the " controverted " books
which have found a place in the New Testa-
ment, Origen quotes most frequently and with
the greatest respect the Shepherd of Hennas
(e. g. De Princ. 1. 3, 3, iv. 11 ; in Matt. torn. xiv.
§ 21 ; in Bom. x. 31, p. 437 L.).'
i This book is not specially mentioned, but Origon's
usage is decisive as to the position which be assigned to
it. The tacit omission is a good illustration of the danger
of trusting to negative evidence.
' The statement of Tarlnus, however (Phitoc. p. «83),
that Origen wrote a commentary on the Sltepherd appears
to be simply a false deduction from the word Itiryovfu&t
(I'MUk. i. p. 23,11).
OBIGENES
He quotes also or refers to the Epistle (i.) of
Clement, " a disciple of the apostles " (De Princ.
ii. 3, 6 ; in Joh. torn. vi. 36 ; Set. in Ez. viii. 3) ;
"the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas" (c Gels. i.
63 ; De Princ. iii. 2, 4 ; comp. Comm. in Bom. i.
§ 18), the Gospel according to the Hebrews (in Joh.
torn. ii. 6, iay ■Kpoalnai tis ; ffom. in Jer. it.
4 ; in Matt. torn. xv. 14, Vet. int. Lot. ; comp.
Hier. de Virr. 111. 2), the Gospels " according to tlut
Egyptians," and "according to the Tacit*
Apostles," "according to Thomas," and "after
Matthias" (Horn. 1 in Luc., "Ecclesia quatuor
habet evangelia, haeresis plurima, e quibus ..."
the Gospel according to Peter, the Booh of James
(in Matt. x. 17, rov imyeypa/iiiiytn) Kara TMrpor
tbayyeKlov t) ttJ$ $t0Kov 'lajaipov), Peter's)
Preaching (in Joh. xiii. 17 ; De Princ Praef. 8,
Petri doctrine.), the Acts. of Paul (in Joh. xx.
12.) De Princ. i. 2, 3), the Clementines (Comm.
Ser. in Matt. § 77 ; in Gen. iii. § 14, al mploioi),
some form, of the Acts of Pilate (in Matt. Comm.
Ser. § 122), the Testaments of the Twelve Pa-
triarchs (in Joh. xv. 6), the Teaching of the-
Apostles (?) (Horn, in Levit. xi. 2).
Sayings attributed to the Lord are given »
Matt. torn. xiii. § 2, xri. § 28 (Set. m Ps. p. 432 L.
and De Orat. §§ 2, 14, 16 ; comp. Matt. vi. 33),
xvii. § 31 ; in Jos. iv. 3. A few traditions are
preserved : in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 126 (Adam
buried on Calvary) ; id. § 25 (death of the father
of John Baptist); c Cels. i. 51 (the cave and
manger at Bethlehem); c. Celt. vi. 75 (the ap-
pearance of Christ) ; Horn, in Ezech. i. 4 (the
baptism of Christ in January).'
Anonymous quotations occur, ffom. in Luc
xxxv. ; Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 61 ; ffom. in Ezech.
i. 5 ; in Bom. ix. § 2.
2. The Teat.— It will be evident, from what
has been said, that Origen had very little of the
critical spirit, in the modern acceptation of the
phrase. This is especially seen in his treatment
of the biblical texts. His importance for textual
criticism is that of a witness and not of a judge.
He gives invaluable evidence as to what he found,
bnt his few endeavours to determine what is
right, in a conflict of authorities, are for the
most part unsuccessful both in method and
result. Generally, however, he makes no at-
tempt to decide on the one right reading. He
is ready to accept all the conflicting readings
as contributing to edification. Even his great
labours on the Greek translations of the Old
Testament were not directed rigorously to the
definite end of determining what was the
authentic text, but mainly to recording the
extent and character of the variations. Having
done this, he left his readers to follow their
own judgment (Comrn. in Matt. xv. 14: Ira ...
i ph> f}ov\6pitvos Ttplrtrrax airri, f Si wpoffxinrrtt
to roioSrov, o fioi\trat wtpl ttjj nfatojris
aVT&v t) /ii) iroriioTj). [HexafLa.1
This want of a definite critical aim is more
decisively shewn in his treatment of the New
Testament. Few variations are more remark-
able than those in Hebr. ii. 9 : x^P' T ' S(0 " an d
X»pU Beov. Origen was acquainted with both,
and apparently he was wholly unconcerned to
■ His statement as to the duration of the Lord's min-
istry, for " a year and a few months" (de Princ. iv. 6),
cannot be included in this list. Comp. Redepenning, d*
Princ. p. 49.
Digitized by
Google
OBIGENES
nuke a choice between them ; both gave a good
sense, and that was a sufficient reason for using
both (in Joh. torn. i. 40 : cfre t( x«p' 5 6t0 *> • • •
rfr« x&peri ...in Joh. xxviii. 14 : the Latin of
Comm. m Som. iii. § 8, t. § 7, sine .Deo, is of no
authority for Origen's judgment).
In other cases of less importance he notices
the existence of various readings in the same
manner : Matt. xvi. 20 (Suo-rcf Aaro, i*tr((ir)<rty ;
Comm. in Matt. xii. § 15) ; Matt. XTili. 1 (0p<p,
■flfttpa; Comm. in Matt. xiii. § 14) ; Mark iii. 18
(Af0fauor: c. Ceh. i. 62); Luke ix. 48 (fVrf,
ftrrai ; Comm. m Matt. xiii. § 19) ; Luke xiv. 19
(Fragm. m Luc. p. 241 L.) ; John i. 4 (some read
rdx* oil hrieiytts itrrtf for 1\v ; in Joh. ii. § 13).
In Matt, xxvii. 17 Origen found '\-qaovv
Bap*0$ar in his copy, but he inclined to the
omission of "InffoEv, with many copies, " that
the name Jesus should not be applied [contrary
to the other evidence of Scripture] to an evil-
doer " (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 121 ; comp. § 33 ;
and schol. ap. Galland).
In noticing the variation in Luke xxiii. 45 he
supposes that the phrase toB y\lov cVXchroiros
(-XiwoVtoi) was introduced in place of kcu ioKo-
rfoftj t l(Xioj either from a false desire for clear-
ness or by the malice of adversaries (m Matt.
Comm. Ser. §134) ; and though he himself qnotes
the reading without remark elsewhere, the cri-
ticism is quite according to his style.
In discussing the scene of the cure of the de-
moniac (Matt. viii. 28 ; Mark v. 1 ; Luke viii. 26)
he decides peremptorily, on geographical argu-
ments, that Tfpatntvuv and Totafnviv must
both be wrong, and that Ttpytffalaiv (t*pyt-
vapip) must be read in all places, for in his
time the scene of the miracle was shewn in the
neighbourhood of Gergesa, though it does not
appear certainly from his language that he
found Ttpytoalw in any evangelic text.
In Rom. iii. 5, if the Latin version of his com-
mentary can be trusted, he seems to have found
in his Greek copy Kara butpinm (Comm. in Som.
iii. § 1, pp. 163, 167 L.). It is more difficult to
determine whether the omission of ph in Rom.
v. 14 (M rote afiafT.) is simply due to Rufinus
or not (id. v. § 1, p. 344 L.).'
Sometimes Origen indulges in conjectures
without any adequate ground. Thus he suspects
that the phrase in Matt. xix. 19, byar. t. w. <rov
is a. has been inserted, supporting the opinion
by the fact that the words are not found in
St. Mark or St. Luke (in Matt. xv. § 14). In
Matt. v. 45 he thinks that inuv may be an addi-
tion of copyists (in Joh. xx. § 15). In Matt.
xxvii. 9 he offers as an alternative explanation
of the difficulty the substitution of "Jeremiah "
for " Zechariah " by an " error of writing " (in
Matt. Comm. Ser. § 117).
The following passages in the Latin transla-
tions may also be noticed: Comm. Ser. in Matt.
§ 43 (Matt. xxiv. 19) : $ 118 (Mark xiv. 61) :
Horn, in /*. ii. § 1 (Matt. i. 23) -, Earn, in Luc.
rii. (Luke i. 46) : Comm. in Som. vi. § 7 (Rom.
rii. 6).
The remarks on the variations of Latin MSS.
are interesting in themselves but foreign to
Origen — e.g. Comm. m Som. iii. § 6 (Rom. iii. 19) ;
OBIGENE8
131
vii. $ 4 (c. viii. 22) ; ix. §§ 10, 12 (c. xii 11, 13) ;
ix. § 42 (Matt. XT. 20).
Of Origen's conjectures (if indeed it is simply
a conjecture) the most famous is Bn0ajS<xp$ for
Br)8avitf , in John i. 28, which he maintained for
local reasons. But when he says that HjjflaWa
was found ox*tbv ir rcurt rots iyrtypi^ots he
implies that he found some other reading which
may have been Bi)0altyn (Bijflapafla).
In spite of these drawbacks, which are practi-
cally of far less moment than appears from an
enumeration of particulars drawn from a large
area, Origen's importance as a witness to the
true text of the New Testament is invaluable.
Notwithstanding the late date and scantiness of
the MSS. in which his Greek writings have been
preserved, and the general untrustworthiness of
the Latin translations in points of textual detail,
it would be possible to determine a pure text of
a great part of the New Testament from his
writings alone (comp. Griesbach, Symb. Crit.
t ii.).
In some respects his want of a critical spirit
makes his testimony to the text of the New
Testament of greater value than if he had fol-
lowed consistently an independent judgment.
He reproduces the characteristic readings which
he found, and thus his testimony is carried back
to an earlier date. At different times he used
copies exhibiting different complexions of text ;
so that his writings reflect faithfully the varia-
tions to which he refers generally. Griesbach
called attention to the most conspicuous illustra-
tion of this fact. He shewed by a wide induc-
tion from the variations in St. Mark that the
evangelic text which Origen used while writing
his commentary on St. Matthew, which was one
of his latest works, was of the type generally
described as " Western " (of which D is the best
representative), while that used by him in writ-
ing his earlier commentary on St. John was of
an " Alexandrine " character in the wider sense
(represented by B C L) (Griesbach, Comm. Crit.
Partk. ii. pp. x. ff. 1811, with which may be
compared his early essay Be codicibus Etxmgg.
IV Origeniaiiis, 1771. Opuscula, i. 226 ff.).
But while Origen's quotations are of the
highest textual value, great care is required in
using the evidence which they furnish. He
frequently quotes from memory, and combines
texts ; and in some cases gives several times a
reading which he can hardly have found in any
MS. (e.g. 1 John iii. 8, yeyeVcirrai). Illustra-
tions of this perplexing laxity occur in Bom. in
Jer. i. 15 (Matt. iii. 12, xiii. 39); id. iv. 2, v. 1
(Acts xiii. 26, 46) ; id. iv. 4 (Luke xviii. 12) ; id.
v. 1 (Tit. iii. 5 f.).
3. Interpretation. — Origen has been spoken
of as the founder of a new form of literature
in Biblical interpretation ; and justly, though
others, among whom Heracleon was conspicuous,
had preceded him in expositions of Scripture
more or less continuous. Origen himself con-
stantly refers to interpretations of his predeces-
sors : * to Heracleon in Joh. ii. 8 and constantly ;
in Matt. x. § 22 (rir irpb ripa* t«), xiv. § 2 (id.) t
xvii. § 17 (v6ftav Uouy h\Kiryoplai), xvii. § 28 ;
in Matt. Comm. Ser. §§ 31, 69, 75, 126 ; Horn.
- It may however be noticed that c. Celt. vi. 3S Is not
opposed to the present reading In Mk. vi. 3.
• Fabriclns has given an Important collection of writers
quoted by Origen, BMiotk. Oraeco, vii. 244 ff. (ed.
Uarles).
K 2
Digitized by
Google
132
0EIGENE8
in Luc. xxxiv. (quidam de presbyteris) ; in Bom.
iv. § 10, p. 304 L., vi. § 7, p. 40 L. ; Horn, in Gen.
r. § 5, it. § 6 ; in Ex. xiii. 3 ; in Levit. viii. 6 ;
in Num. ix. 5 ; in Jos. xvi. 1, 5 ; in Jvd. viii. 4 ;
in 1 Sam. i. 1 ; in Ps. xxrvi., Horn, ii. 6, Horn.
iv. 1 ; in Jerem., c. Celt. ii. 25.
It is probable that these references arc in
many cases to homilies or isolated treatises, but
at any rate they give a striking view of the
extent of Christian thought and literature in the
2nd century and at the beginning of the 3rd.
Origen's method of interpreting Scripture was
a practical deduction from his view of the inspir-
ation of Scripture. This he developed in the
fourth book of the treatise On First Principles.
Briefly he regarded every "jot and tittle "as
having its proper work (Horn, in Jer. xxxix. fr.
ep. Philoc. c. x.). All is precious ; not even the
least particle is void of force (in Matt. torn. xvi. 12).
Comp. Ep. ad Greg. § 3 ; in Joh. torn. i. § 4. Minute
details of order and number veil and yet suggest
great thoughts (e.g. Sel.inPss. xi. 370, 377 L.).
It follows that in interpretation there is need of
great exactness and care (in Gen. torn. iii. p. 46 L. ;
Philoc. xiv.), and scrupulous study of details (in
Joh. xx. 29). Origen himself illustrates his
principles by countless subtle observations of great
interest — e.g. in Matt. xii. § 22 (c. iv. 10, orUrct
fxav and trrpatptls) ; id. § 35 (c. xvi. 28, yti<raa-$ai
iar&rov) ; xiii. § 31 (c. xvi. 19, o&pavol) ; xiv. 15
(c. ix. 9, ayaaris) ; xv. § 9 (c. xii. 15) ; xv. § 28
(c. xx. 4 ff.); in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 83 (o.
xxvi. 24, oV oV) ; id. § 90 (c. xxvi. 37, flp{<rro) ;
id. § 100 (c. xxvi. 50, <p(\t) ; in Horn. v. § 6 (c.
ii. 8, ipyv) ; Bom. in Gen. iv. § 5, viii. § 1, xv.
§ 9, xvi. § 3 ; in Levit. xiv. § 3 ; in Num. xii.
§ 2, xiv. § 3, xvi. § 2, xxir. § 2, xxvii. § 6; in
Ezech. ix. § 2.
In these criticisms the skill with which he
combines passages from different parts of Scrip-
ture in illustration of some particular phrase or
detail is specially to be noticed— e.g. in Matt. c.
xiii. § 3 (c. xvii. 4 f.) ; id. xiv. § 14 (c. xix. 1,
tri\*o-(); id. xvi. § 4 (c. xx. 21, Ka0(<ra<rtr) ; in
Joh. xxxii. 2 (p. 381 L., dpiarov). Each term
calls np far-reaching associations ; and all Scrip-
ture is made to contribute to the fulness of the
thought to be expressed.
One practical consequence followed from Ori-
gen's sense of the value of each word of Scripture.
He recognised the necessity of learning Hebrew
that he might be confident as to the original form
of the records of the Old Testament. It must not
however be supposed that he studied Hebrew
with the spirit of a modern scholar. He seems
to have contented himself with being able to
identify the Hebrew corresponding with the
Greek texts before him (comp. Sel. in Pss. xi.
pp. 355 f. L.). Nor did he always take the
trouble to do this. In his Homilies he constantly
follows the Greek text, when it differs widely
from the Hebrew, without marking the variation
(e.g. Horn, in Jos. xxvi., a most remarkable
example ; Bom. in Jos. xxiv. § 1 ; Bom. in Cant.
i. § 6, Cant. viii. 5).
In other cases he notes variations of the Greek
copies without any reference to the Hebrew (Bom.
m Num. xxviii. 4, Dent, xxxii. 8, a crucial ex-
ample : comp. Bom. in Ezech. xiii. § 1 ; in Joh.
torn. xiii. § 24, 1 K. xix. 12 ; in Joh. xx. § 20, Ps.
rviii. (xix.) 10 ; Bom. in Ezech. xi. 1 ; Bom. in
Jer. viii. 1, Job xxvi. 7) ; and he even appears
ORIGENES
to have obelized passages in consideration o*
the agreement of "the other editions" (at
Aonral lirtoVcis) alone (in Joh. xxviii. 13, Num.
xxiii. 6).
Elsewhere he notes the variation of the Greek
copies from the Hebrew (Bom. in Cant. ii. § 4,
Prov. xxvii. 10 ; Set. in Pss. p. 360 L. ; in Rom.
viii. § 5, Is. liii. 1 ; id. § 7, Ps. lxviii (lxix.) 22;
id. § 11, Is. lix. 20 ; Sel. in Pss. p. 366 L. ; in
Ezech. vi. 4, xiii. 4 ; in Jer. xiv. 3) ; and in one
place at least he notes the readings of " two
Hebrew copies " (&/. in Pss. xi. p. 393 L).
Sometimes he implies that his knowledge of
the Hebrew reading depends on the information
of others (Bom. in Num. xvi. 4, " Hebraei habere
se scriptum dicunt," Jonah iii. 5 ; in Horn. ii. § 13,
fi. 136 L.); and in especial be quotes what he
earnt in conversation with " Iullus flovAAos)
the patriarch " ("of Alexandria ?] (Sel. in Pss. pp.
352 ff. ; comp. flier. Apol. i. § 3, Buillus).
In one place he confounds the letters n and 2,
supposing that Ahimelech of 1 Sam. xxi. is called
by a slight change Ahimelech in the heading of
Ps. xxxiv. (xxxiii.), "since the Hebrew letters
Caph and Beth differ only by a small stroke "
(Sel. in Pss. p. 363 L.). On the other hand, he
notices the idiomatic usage of 1 (Bom. in Num.
xix. 3).
When he marks the variation he gives no
paramount authority to the Hebrew text (Bom.
m Num. xviii. 3, in " Hebraeorum codicibus ... re-
peri, quibui quamvis non utamur, tamen agnos-
cendi gratia dicemus etiam ibi quae legimus," Dan.
i. 17; Horn, in Gen. iii. 5, "codices ecclesiae. . .
Hebraeaexemplaria. . ."), but keeps faithfully to
the LXX (in Cant. i. p. 344 L., " nos LXX. inter-
pretum scripts per omnia custodimus ;" comp.
note on Gen. iii. 24, p. 59 L.).
But though his critical knowledge of Hebrew-
was slight he evidently leamt much from Hebrew
interpreters, and not unfrequently he quotes
Hebrew traditions and " Midrash " (Sel. in Gen.
ii. 8 ; Bom. in Ex. v. § 5 ; in Num. xiii. 5 ; in
Bom. x. § 7, p. 397 L. ; in Matt. xv. 5 ; Sel. in
Pss. p. 374 L. ; Prol. in Cant. pp. 289 f. ; Bom.
in Is. i. § 5, ix. ; Bom. in Ezech. iv. 8, x. 3 ;
compare an interesting note on the sacred name
*I«rij, Sel. in Ps. xi. p. 396 L.). He gives also
an interpretation of " Corban " (in Matt. torn,
xi. 9) and of" Iscariot" (in Matt. Comm. Ser. 78)
from Jewish sources.
The most characteristic use which he makes of
his knowledge is in the mystical interpretation
of a series of names. These interpretations are
often striking, even when they are based upon
false etymologies (e.g. Bom. in Jos. xx. 5 ; Horn,
in Ex. v. ; comp. Redepenning, Origenes, i. pp.
458 ff).
While Origen thus endeavoured to apply the
principle that every word of Scripture has its
lesson to all the sacred records without differ-
ence, he was met at once by the moral and his-
torical difficulties of the Old Testament (comp.
De Princ. iv. 1 = Philoc. 1 ff. throughout). To
obviate these he systematized the theory of a
"spiritual sense," which was generally if vaguely
admitted by the church (De Princ. 1, Praef. 8).
There is, he taught, generally, a threefold mean-
ing in the text of the Bible, literal (historical),
moral, mystical, corresponding to the three ele-
ments in man's constitution, body, soul, and spirit
(De Princ. iv. 11; Bom. in Lev. v. §§ 1, 5). So it ii
Digitized by
Google
0BI6ENES
that Scripture has a difl'ereut force fur different
ages and for different readers, according to their
circumstances and capacities (m Rom. ii. § 14, p.
150 L). Bat all find in it what they need.*
This threefold sense is to be sought for both
in the Old and in the New Testament. The
literal interpretation brings out the simple
precept or fact : the moral meets the individual
want of each believer : the mystical illuminates
features in the whole work of Redemption {Horn,
in Let. i. §§ 4 f., ii. § 4 ; De Princ. iv. 12, 13, 22).
There is then manifold instruction for all be-
lievers in the precise statement, the definition
of practical duties, the revelation of the divine
plan, which the teacher must endeavour to bring
out in his examination of the text. Origen him-
self steadily kept this object in view. Examples
of his method have been noticed in the brief
r.nalysis which has been given of his exegetical
writings. It will be sufficient here to refer to
Horn, in Gen. ii. § 6, xvii. §§ 1, 9 ; in Ex. i. § 4,
iii. § 3 ; in Lev. v. § 5, vii. § 1 ; in Num. ix. § 7 ;
ami for the application of the method to the New
Testament to in Matt. torn. xvi. § 12, xiv. §§ 2 f. ;
in Matt. Comm. Ser. 17 ff. 27.
Sometimes indeed he holds that only two of
the three senses coexist, when the literal sense
cannot be maintained (e. g. tn Matt. Comm. Ser.
43, 1 Tim. ii. 15 ; comp. Horn. r. in Ps. xxxvi. 5) ;
and even when the letter is true, the ideal mean-
ing is of greater importance (in Matt. Comm.
Ser. 77, Matt. xxvi. 6 ff.). At the same time
Origen affirms generally the literal truth both
of the Old and of the New Testament (e.g. Frag.
in Philem. and Frag, in Galat. p. 269 L. ; comp.
De Princ. ir. 19).
It is easy to point out serious errors in detail
in Origen's interpretation of Scripture. On
these there is no need to dwell. It is however
of importance to mark that which was his main
defect, and the real source of his minor faults.
He was without true historic feeling. He speaks
of the difficulty of history (c. Ceh. i. 42) ; and
he seems to have given up all idea of realising
the changing conditions of life during the fulfil-
ment of the counsel of God. He had therefore
no law of proportion to assist him in judging of
the primitive phases of revelation. He refused
to interpret life in the phases of its growth, and
converted it into a riddle. For him prophecy
ceased to have any vital connexion with the
trials and struggles of a people of God ; and
psalms (cjj. Ps. 1.) were no longer the voice of a
believer's deepest personal experience.
In this respect Origen presents, though in a
modified form, many of the characteristic defects
of Rabbinic interpretation. It is not indeed
unlikely that he was directly influenced by
the masters of Jewish exegesis. Just as they
claimed for Abraham the complete fulfilment
of the Law, and made the patriarchs perfect
types of legal righteousness, Origen also refused
to see in the Pentateuch any signs of inferior
religious knowledge or attainment. The pa-
triarchs and prophets were, in his opinion, as
wise by God's gifts as the apostles (in Joh. vi. 3) ;
and the deepest mysteries of the Christian reve-
lation could be directly illustrated by the records
OEIGENES
133
* The relation of Origen's principles generally to those
of the Alexandrine school has been discussed by Klhn,
Theater v. Mopeaettia, pp. 20 ff.
of their lives and words (in Joh. ii. 28), though
sometimes he seems to feel the difficulties by
which his position was beset (in Joh. xiii. 46;
comp. c. Ceh. vii. 4 ff.).
But while this grave defect is most distinctly
acknowledged, it must be remembered that
Origen had a special work to do, and that he
did it. In his time powerful schools of Christian
speculation disparaged the Old Testament or
rejected it. Christian masters had not yet been
able to vindicate it from the Jews and for
themselves. This task Origen accomplished.
From his day the Old Testament has been an
unquestioned part of our Christian heritage,
and he fixed rightly the general spirit in which
it is to be received. The Old Testament, he says,
is always new to Christians who understand and
expound it spiritually and in an evangelic sense,
new not in time but in interpretation (Horn, in
Num. ix. § 4 ; comp. c. Ceh. ii. 4). If in pressing
this conclusion he was led to exaggeration, the
error may be pardoned in regard to the greatness
of the service. The principle itself becomes more
fruitful when history and criticism are allowed
the fullest activity, within their own sphere, in
dealing with Scripture, a part which Origen was
unable to give to them.
Moreover Origen's method was fixed and con-
sistent. He systematized what was before tenta-
tive and inconstant (comp. Itedepenning, De
Princ. pp. 56 f.). He laid down, once for all,
broad outlines of interpretation ; and mystical
meanings were not arbitrarily devised to meet
particular emergencies. The influence of his
views is a sufficient testimony to their power.
It is not too much to say that the mediaeval
interpretation of Scripture in the West was
inspired by Origen; and through secondary
channels these mediaeval comments have passed
into our own literature.
Origen indeed was right in principle. "He
felt that there was something more than a mere
form in the Bible : he felt that ' the words of
God ' must have an eternal significance, for all
that comes into relation with God is eternal :
he felt that there is a true development and a
real growth in the elements of divine revelation,
it not in divine communication, yet in human
apprehension : he felt the power and the glory
of the spirit of Scripture bursting forth from
every part." No labour was too great to bestow
upon the text in which priceless treasures were
enshrined : no hope was too lofty for the inter-
preter to cherish. This conviction Origen has
bequeathed to us that it may be embodied more
fully than he could embody it.
VII. Oriqen as a Theologian.'
Origen was essentially the theologian of an
age of transition. His writings present prin-
ciples, ruling ideas, tendencies, but they are
not fitted to supply materials for a system of
formulated dogmas, after the type of later con-
fessions. Every endeavour to arrange his opinions
according to the schemes of the 16th century,
can only issue in a misunderstanding of their
general scope and proportion. This is sufficiently
clear from the outline which has been already
» In addition to works treating of Origen's opinions
generally, the essay of P. Fischer, Oommentatio de O.
T1\eologia et Comologia (Halls, 1845), Is worthy of
notice.
Digitized by
Google
134
OKIGENES
given of his treatise On First Principles. The
whole structure of this work, which presents a
connected view of his intellectual apprehension
of Christianity, is widely different from mediae-
val and modern expositions of the faith. At
the outset Origen gives a clear exposition of
what were acknowledged to be the doctrines
held generally by the church, corresponding
in the main with the Apostles' Creed, which
is of the highest interest (De Princ. Praef);
and starting from this he endeavours to deter-
mine, by the help of Scripture and reason, sub-
jects which were left open or unexplored. But his
inquiries and his results were profoundly in-
fluenced by his circumstances. They cannot be
judged fairly when taken out of their connexion
with contemporary thought. The book contains
very little technical teaching. It is silent as to
the sacraments. It gives no theory of the atone-
ment : no discussion of justification. Yet it does
deal with problems of thought and life which lie
behind these subjects.
Origen fonnd himself face to face with power-
ful schools, which within and without the church
maintained antagonistic views on man, the world,
and God, in their extremest forms. There was
the false realism, which found expression in Mon-
tanism : the false idealism, which spread widely
in the many forms of Gnosticism. Here the
Creator was degraded into a secondary place;
there God Himself was lost in His works. Some
represented men as inherently good or bad from
their birth : others swept away moral distinc-
tions of action. Against all Origen sought to
maintain two great truths which inspire all
writings, the unity of all creation, as answering
to the thought of a Creator infinitely good and
infinitely just ; and the power of moral deter-
mination in rational beings. The treatment and
the apprehension of these two truths is modified
for man by the actual fact of sin. The power of
moral determination has issued in present dis-
order ; and the divine unity of creation has to be
realised hereafter. Origen therefore looks at the
world as it is, and strives to find in revelation
some solution for the riddles which it offers.
His aim is to help his readers to gain a practical
conception of what he holds to be the central
truth of life, that the whole sum of finite being,
even in its present state, offers an intelligible
manifestation ot the goodness and righteousness
of God in every detau, not only consistent with
but dependent upon the free and responsible
action of each individual, which forms a decisive
element in the fulfilment of the divine counsel
(on the ideas of Foreknowledge, Providence, the
Divine will, see Phiioc. c. 25 ; t'n Rom, i. 3 p. 18
L. ; m Gen. torn. iii. 6 p. 21 ; in Gen. Horn. iii.
2; cCels.il 20).
In the attempt to establish this conception
Origen does not conceal or extenuate the evils
which are everywhere visible in the world. He
believes that Scripture throws light upon them,
and that in obedience to its guidance we must
seek knowledge of God, of the Incarnation, of the
origin and differences of rational creatures in
heaven and on earth, of the creation, and of the
causes of the wickedness which is spread over
the earth and (as it appears) elsewhere (fie
Princ. iv. 14).
1. Finite Beings, Creation, Man, Spirits.— He
goes backward therefore : he endeavours to pass
OBIGENES
from the outward to the inward, from the tem-
poral to the eternal. He argues that it is im-
possible to think of God without a creation:
of a king without subjects; even as it is im-
possible to think of a Father without a Son
(comp. Phot. Cod. 235). In doing this he dimly
feels the contradictions which follow from apply-
ing words of time (like "always") to God.
Though in one sense there always was a finite
order (fie Princ. i. fragm. Gr. 2), the world
was not coeternal with God {De Princ. ii. 1, 4).
Affirming this truth Origen thinks that we shall
best realise the fact of creation, according to our
present powers, by supposing a vast succession of
orders, one springing out of another (ill ii. 1, 3).
The present order, which began and will end in
time, must, as far as we can conceive, be one
only in the succession of corresponding orders
(De Princ. iii. 5, 3). The word used for the
foundation of the world (icara/3oA4) really im-
plies that it owes its being to a " dejection," a
casting down from some loftier state (td. iii. 5, 4 ;
in Joh. ix. 5). It points to a fall in another
order. To understand the actual constitution of
things which we see we must consequently form
some idea of a beginning, if such a word can be
used.
"In the beginning," then, he writes, "when
God created what He was pleased to create, that
is rational natures, He had no other cause of
creation beside Himself, that is His own good-
ness " (De Princ. ii. 9, 6 ; comp. iv. 35). This
creation answered to a definite thought, and
therefore, Origen argues, was definite itself.
God " could " not create or embrace in thought
that which has no limit (De Princ. ii. fragm.
Gr. 6 ; ii. 9, 1 ; iv. fragm. Gr. 4). The rational
creatures which He made were all originally
equal, spiritual, free. There was no ground for
their difference. But moral freedom, including
personal self-determination, gave occasion to dif-
ference. Finite creatures, once made, either ad-
vanced, through imitation of God, or fell away,
declined, through neglect of Him (id. ii. 9, 6).
Evil, it follows, is negative, — the loss of good
which was attainable, the shadow which marks
the absence or rather the exclusion of light.
But as God made creatures for an end, so He
provided that they should, through whatever
discipline of sorrow, attain to it. He made
matter also, which might serve as a fitting ex-
pression for their character, and become, in the
most manifold form, a medium for their training.
So it was that, by various declensions, " spirit "
(rrtviuCf lost its proper fire and was chilled into
a " soul " (tyvxb"), and " souls " were embodied in
our earthly frames in this world of sense. Suck
an embodiment was a provision of divine wisdom
by which they were enabled, in accordance with
the necessities of the fact, to move towards the
accomplishment of their destiny (De Princ. i.
7,4).
Under this aspect man is a microcosm. (Bom.
in Gen. i. 11 ; in Lev. v. 2 : mtellige te et alium
mundum esse parvum et intra te esse solem, esse
lunam, etiam steUas.) He stands in the closest
connexion with the seen and with the unseen •
and is himself the witness of the correspondences
which exist between the visible and invisible
orders (Horn, in Num. xi. 4, xvii. 4, xxiv. 1,
xxviii. 2 ; Horn. i. m Ps. xxxvii. 1 ; in Joh. torn,
xix. 5, xxiii. 4; De Princ iv. fragm, Gr. p.
Digitized by
Google
OBJGKNES
184 R.). He in made for the spiritual and can-
not find rest elsewhere. Hence it is that Origen
combats with nnirearying earnestness every ten-
dency to units indissolnbly present conditions
with the future, or to trust to deductions drawn
from the temporal and local limitations of present
human observation. The grossness of Millenari-
anism filled him with alarm (De Princ. ii. 11, 2 ;
comp. Sel. in Ps. xi. p. 449 L.). The literal
assertion of anthropomorphic conceptions of God
seemed to him to overthrow the faith (comp.
Hum. in Gen. iii. 2; Sel. in Gen. i. 26). And
those who are familiar with the writings and
influence of Tertullian will know that Origen's
opposition to materialism in every form was
called for by pressing dangers.
As a necessary consequence of his deep view of
nun's divine kinsmanship, Origen labours to give
distinctness to the unseen world. He appears
already to live and move in it. He finds there
the realities of which the phenomena of earth
are shadows (comp. in Rom. x. § 39). External
objects, peoples, cities, are to him veils and
symbols of invisible things. And more than this.
Not only is there the closest correspondence
between the constitution of different orders of
being, there is also even now a continuation of
unobserved intercourse between them (comp.
de Princ. ii. 9, 3).
Angels (see De Princ. i. 8, iii. 2, throughout)
are supposed to preside over the working of ele-
mental forces, over plants and beasts (in Num.
Horn. xiv. 2 ; in Jer. Bom. x. 6 ; c. Celt. viii. 31 ;
De Princ iii. 3, 3), and it is suggested that
nature is affected by their moral condition (in
E'.tch. Earn. iv. 2). More particularly men were,
in Origen's opinion, committed to the care of
spiritual "rulers," and deeply influenced by
changes in their feeling and character (in Joh.
Jiii. §58; comp. De Princ. i. 8, 1). Thus he
maintained that there are guardian angels of
cities and provinces and nations (Horn, in Luc.
iii. ; De Princ. iii. 3, 2), a belief which he sup-
ported habitually by the LXX. version of Deut.
xxxii. 8 (in Matt. torn. xi. § 16 ; in Luc. Horn.
xxxv. ; m Rom. viii. § 8 ; in Gen. Horn. xvi. 2 ;
in Ex. Bom. viii 2 ; in Ezech. Bom. xiii. 1 f.,
ic). Individual men also had their guardian
angels (m Matt. i~ xiii. 27 ; in Luc. Bom. xxxv. ;
in Num. Bom. xi. 4, xx. 3 ; in Ezech. Bom. i. 7 ;
■a Jui. vi. 2 ; De Princ. iii. 2, 4) ; and angels
are supposed to be present in the assemblies of
Christians, assisting in the devotions of the faith-
ful (De Orat. xxxi. p. 283 L. ; Bom. m Luc xxiii. ;
c Celt. viii. 64).
But while Origen recognises in the fullest
degree the reality and power of angelic ministra-
tion, he expressly condemns all angel-worship
(c. Gsfa. v. 4, 11).
On the other hand Origen held that there are
spiritual hosts of evil corresponding to the
angelic forces, and matched in conflict with
them (en Matt. torn. xvii. 2 ; in Matt. Comm. Ser.
5 102 ; Bom. in Jot. xv. 5). He even speaks of
a Trinity of evil (in Matt. xi. § 6, xii. § 20).
An evil power strives with the good for the sway
of individuals (in Bom. i. § 18) ; and thus all
life is made a straggle of unseen powers (e. g.
notes on Ps. xxrvii. ; in Joh. xx. §§ 29, 32 ; Horn.
xx. in Jot. fragm.).
One aspect of this belief had a constant and
powerful influence on daily life. Origen, like
GMGENE6
135
most of his contemporaries, supposed that evil
spiritual beings were the objects of heathen
worship (c. Cels. vii. 5). There was, in his
opinion, a terrible reality in their agency.
Within certain limits they could work so as to
bind their servants to them.
But the intercourse between the seen and
unseen worlds was not confined, according to
Origen's opinion, to the intercourse of angels
and demons with men. He believed that the
dead also influence the living.
The actions of men on earth last, in their
effects, after the actors have departed (t>» Rom.
ii. 4, p. 80 L.). Disembodied (or unembodied)
souls are not idle (in Matt. xv. 35). So the
" soul " of Christ preached to " souls * (c. Celt.
iii. 43). And, in especial, the saints sympathize
with man still struggling on earth with a sym-
pathy larger than that of those who are clogged
by conditions of mortality (De Orat. xi. ; in
Matt. torn, xxvii. 30 ; in Joh. torn. xiii. 57 ; iii. in
Cant. 7). They help us not only by the examples
of their lives and the lessons of their books, but
also by their prayers (Bom. in Num. xxvi. 6 ; in
Jos. xvi. 5); and they can pray with a better
knowledge of our true wants than we have our-
selves (Exh. ad Mart. 30, 38 ; Bom. in Jos. xvi.
§ 5 ; comp. De Orat. 14). But in this connexion
Origen's silence as to prayers of the living for
the dead is most remarkable. Prayers to the
dead, like prayers to angels, are excluded by his
view of the one object of all prayer (c. Celt.
viii. 64). The innumerable hosts of spirits help
us uncalled (id.).
Such views as have been indicated give a
mysterious solemnity to the laws of creation (c.
Cels. iv. 8), bound together in all its visible
parts, and in all its parts bound to the
invisible, and destined to judgment (in Ezech.
Horn. iv. 1). Origen dwells upon them with
devout partiality. He strives, not always sue*
cessfully, to give them clearness and consistency.
But he is happier in the assertion of his main
principles, and he himself acknowledges that it
must be so. The range of human observation,
the scene of human experience, are, he repeats
again and again, very small (in Rom. viii. § 10,
p. 260 ; § 12, p. 280). Still we can trace cor-
respondences in the periods of the divine dis-
pensations (in Matt. xii. § 3 ; comp. in Matt. xv.
§ 31), and feel the dependence of phenomena one
on another,* and the life and sympathy which
unites all being (in Rom. i. 9, p. 35 L. ; De Princ
I 7,5; 8,2).
What has been said of Origen's opinions as to
the wider relations of life, makes his view of
man's position in the visible world more intelli-
gible. His presence and condition here are due,
as has been seen, to the fact of evil, of which
the origin is referred to some unknown sphere
(e. Celt. iv. 65 ; comp. in Joh. xiii. § 37). When
placed in the world man, ns a rational being, was
still endowed with freedom, that is, moral re-
sponsibility (in Num. xii. 3). On this Origen
insists with the greatest earnestness. (See De
Princ iii. = PhUoc 20; id. i. 5, 5 »./.) But
every one is sinful (c. Cels. iii. 69), a sign of
which he sees in the baptism of infants (Bom.
• It Is a characteristic Illustration of tbls belief that
Origen allows that there may be a true science of astro'
logy, though not for us (Comm. in Oen. ill. y 9).
Digitized by
Google
136
ORIGENES
mLuc. viii. 3; in Horn. v. § 9, p. 397 L.), though
all sins are not equal (Bom. in Ex. x. 3, peccata
ad damnum, ad mortem) ; and grace is required
for the doing of all good (c. Cels. vi. 78 ; comp.
Horn, in Num. xx. 3). Every one also can justly
be called to account for his corruption (Horn, m
Jer. ii. 1).
But while Origen does not extenuate the effects
of man's sin, he maintains a lofty view of the
nobility of his nature and of his destiny (c. Cels.
iv. 25,30) ; and so he holds that the world has
been made by divine wisdom to be a 6tting
place for the purification of a being such as man
(iDeiVinc. ii. 1, 1 ; 2,2; 3,1; e. Cels. vi. 44 ; comp.
»'» Rom. viii. 10, p. 261) ; and that everything
has been so ordered by Providence from the first
as to contribute to this end (De Princ. ii. 1, 2).
Man can, if he will, read the lesson of his life :
he has a spiritual faculty, by which he can form
conclusions on spiritual things, even as he is
made to form conclusions on impressions of
sense.
The body, so to speak, reflects the soul ; the
" outer man " expresses the " inner man " (in
Horn. ii. 13, p. 142 L.). There is imposed upon
us the duty of service (in Watt. Comm. Ser. § 66),
and there is the largest variety of offices (in Joh.
t. x. 23), room being made even for the meanest
(Horn, in A'um. xiv. 2, p. 162 L.).
All this is determined by law, that is, by the
will of God ; and God has not left man without
spiritual knowledge (in Rom. i. 16). All alike
have a natural law within them (id. ii. 8, 9,
iii. 6 ; c. Cels. i. 4 ; Horn, in Num. x. 3). This
" law of nature " is the " law of God " (in Rom. iii.
2, p. 177 L.). God Himself cannot break it, since
He would then cease to be God (c. Cels. v. 23).
It folio ws therefore that alleged miracles must
be brought to a moral test (c. Ce!s. ii. 51, iii. 27).
True miracles are "signs " (in Joh. vi. 17). The
perception of the " law of nature " comes with the
development of reason (in Rom. vi. 8, pp. 43 f. L.);
and he who loyally follows its injunctions, though
he has not the faith of Christ, be he Jew or
Gentile, will not lose an appropriate reward (io*.
ii. 7, p. 98 L.).
The visible creation thus bears, in all its parts,
the impress of a divine purpose ; and the Incar-
nation was the crowning of the creation, by which
the purpose was made fully known, and provision
made for its accomplishment (De Princ. iii. 5, 6).
2. Theology. The Incarnation. The Person
of Christ. The Holy Trinity. The work of Christ.
— On no subject is Origen more full or more
suggestive than on this (De Princ. i. 2, ii. 6,
iv. 31). No one perhaps has done so much to
vindicate and harmonize the fullest acknowledg-
ment of the perfect humanity of the Lord and of
His perfect divinity in one Person. His famous
image of the " glowing iron" (De Princ. ii. 6, 6)
made an epoch in Christology. Here and there
his language is liable to misconception, or even
found to be erroneous by later investigations,
but he laid down the ontlines of the faith, on
the basis of Scripture, which have not been
shaken. He maintained, on the one hand, the
true and perfect manhood of Christ, subject to
the conditions of natural growth, against all
forms of Docetism ; and, on the other hand, he
maintained the true and perfect divinity of the
" God Word " (fltbi Koyos), which was so united
with "the man Christ Jesus," through the human
OEIGENES
soul, as to be one person, against all forms ef
Ebionism and Patripassionism (De Princ n.
6, 3).
Origen's doctrine of the Incarnation of the
God Word rests in part upon his doctrine of the
Godhead. " All," he held, " who are born again
unto salvation, have need of the Father, Sora,
and Holy Spirit, and would not obtain salvation
unless the Trinity were entire " (De Princ. i. 3, 5).
Hence he speaks of baptism as " the beginning
and fountain of divine gifts to him who offers
himself to the divinity of the power of the invo-
cations of the adorable Trinity " (ray t?» wpoff-
KWijTijs rpiiSos fwtK\ii<rtttp) (in Joh. vi. 17).*
But there is, in his judgment, a difference in the
extent of the action of the Persons in the Holy
Trinity. The Father, "holding all things to-
gether, reaches (<p$dv<i) to each being, imparting;
being to each from that which is His own, for
He is absolutely (&r yap tarir). The Son is less
than the Father (i\drrav xapi r. «.), reaching
only to rational beings, for He is second to the
Father; and, further, the Holy Spirit is less
(ffrroy), and extends (Swcvoi/uvor) to the saints-
only. So that in this respect (xarii toSto) the
power of the Father is greater in comparison
with (*apd) the Son and the Holy Spirit ; and
that of the Son more in comparison with the
Holy Spirit ; and, again, the power of the Holy
Spirit more exceeding (5ta<pipovaa fiaWov) in
comparison with all other holy beings." But
to rightly understand this passage it is of primary
importance to observe that Origen is not speaking;
of the essence of the Persons of the Godhead, but
of their manifestation to creatures (comp. De-
Princ. i. 3, 7).* Essentially the three Persons are
of one Godhead, and eternal. The subordination
which Origen teaches is not of essence but of per-
son and office. His aim is to realise the Father as
the one Fountain of Godhead, while vindicating
true deity for the Son and the Holy Spirit. In
this respect he worked out first the thought of
" the eternal generation " of the Son, which was
accepted from him by the catholic church as the
truest human expression of one side of the mys-
tery of the essential Trinity.
Generally it may be remarked that Origen's-
specific opinions spring from a comparison of
what man is and needs with the broad revelation
of God in Scripture. Looking within he is con-
scious of personal existence, thought, hallowing,
and in each relation he recognises the action of
the one God.* He feels that, however imper-
fectly, the relations thus existing in himself
correspond to something in the divine nature.
So he interprets what Scripture and the role
of the church taught of the Holy Trinity. The
Trinity of revelation answers to the trinity of
being, but it is of the former that he treats:
human thought can rise no higher with distinct
conceptions.
* There can be no question as to the authenticity of
this passage, and of the nae of the word Tpiat . It must
have escaped Redepennlng's recollection when he wrote
his confident note on the date of the term : de Princ 1,
3, *, p. 136.
b Compare Marechal. Concord. Pp. e. v. $ 9, and Bp.
Dull, Dtf. Fid. JVic. c. Ix. (reprinted by Delarue), so
Origen's view of subordination.
• Comp. Meier, D. UKrt c. A- Trinitit, i. ISO.
Digitized by
Google
OBIGEXES
(For fuller details on Origen's teaching on the
Holy Trinity it most be sufficient to refer to De
Princ. i. 5, 3 ; iv. 27 f. ; m Rom. vi. 13, p. 158 L.,
riii. 4, p. 216 L. ; in Num. xii. 1 ; fraijm. in Gen.
tnm. i. p. 4 L. ; c. Cels. riii. 12 ft". ; and especially
tn Joh. torn. ii. 1 S. For his doctrine of the
Father, see De Princ. i. 1.)
The peculiar connexion which Origen re-
cognises between the Son (the God Word) and
rational beings establishes (so to speak) the fit-
ness of the Incarnation. The Son stood in a
certain affinity with rational souls; and the
human soul with which He was united in the
Incarnation had alone remained absolutely pure,
by the exercise of free choice, in its pre-existence
(De Princ. ii. 6, 5). Through this union all
human nature therefore was made capable of
being glorified, without the violation of its char-
acteristic limitations (comp. c. Cell. iii. 41 f.).
The body of Christ was perfect no less than His
son! (c. Cels. i. 32 {.).
Fuller illustrations of Origen's views will be
found in — tn Joh. torn. xii. 25, 34, 36, torn, xxxii.
17 ; <n Matt. torn. xv. 24, xvi. 8, xvii. 14
(&t<$oy«w) ; in Rom. iii. 8, p. 208 L., vii. 5,
p. 107, 14, p. 158 ; fragm. in Bebr. p. 300 L. ;
Horn, n Lev. xiii. 4 ; in Jer. i. 7 (human pro-
Cress); in Etech. i. 10; Horn, in Luc. xix. ; in
Jiom. riiL 4 (prayer to Christ) ; c. Cels. ii. 9.
Compare also in addition to the general works
on the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, H. Schutz,
Die Christotogie d. Origenes, Jahrbb. f. Prot.
Theot., 1875.
The work of Christ was, Origen emphatically
maintained, for all men and for the whole of man
(comp. c. Celt. iv. 3 f.). It was therefore so re-
vealed that it could be apprehended according to
the several powers and wants of believers (in
Matt. torn. xii. 36, 41, xv. 241, xvii. 19 ; c. Cels.
iv. 15, vi. 68; in Joh. ii. 12). Christ became,
in a transcendent sense, "all things to all men "
(De Princ. iv. 31 ; in Joh. torn. xix. 1, xx. 28 ;
comp. c Cels. iii. 79). And there is still a
present continuous manifestation of Christ. He
is ever being born (Bom. in Jer. ix. 4). Ha is
seen even now, as He was seen by the eye of
faith, as each believer has the faculty of seeing
(c. Cels. ii. 64, iv. 15, vi. 77 ; in Matt. xv. 7 ;
Horn, in Luc. iii.). And as each reflects Him,
he becomes, in the apostolic sense, himself a
Christ, an anointed one (in Joh. torn. vi. 3 f.). For
the union of God and man, which was accom-
plished absolutely in Christ, is to be fulfilled
in due measure in each Christian (c. Cels. iii. 28 ;
m Joh. i. 30), as Christ had made it possible (in
Matt. torn. xiii. 9).
Origen thus insists on the efficacy of Christ's
work for the consummation of humanity and of
the individual, as a victory over every power of
evil. He dwells no less earnestly upon the value
of the life and death of Christ as a vicarious
sacrifice for sin. He seeks illustrations of the
general idea of the power of vicarious sufferings
in Gentile stories of self-sacrifice (c. Cels. i. 31),
and extends it to the case of martyrs (Exh. ad
Mart. c. 42; comp. in Joh. torn. vi. 36; xxviii. 14).
And though he does not attempt to explain how
the sacrifice of Christ was efficacious, he fre-
quently presents it as a ransom given to redeem
man from Satan, to whom sin had made man a
debtor. Christ, in His own person, freely paid
the debt, by bearing the utmost punishment of
ORIGENES
137
sin, and so set man free, " giving His soul (i^i'x^))
as a ransom for him " (in Mutt. torn. xvi. 8 ; in
Rom. ii. 13, p. 140 L. ; Comm. Ser. in MM. § 135).
At other times he regards it as a propitiation
for the divine remission of sins (Horn, in A'uro.
xxiv. 1 ; in Lev. i. 3 : comp. c. Cels. vii. 17).
As a necessary consequence of his view of the
connexion of all things, Origen held that the
death of Christ was salutary for the whole world
(c. Cels. iii. 17); and of avail for heavenly beings,
if not for the expiation of sin yet for advance-
ment in blessedness (Horn, in Lev. i. 3, ii. 3 ; tn
Rom. v. »./., p. 409 L. ; id. i. 4 ; Bo-n. in Luc. x.).
Thus in a true sense angels themselves were dis-
ciples of Christ (in Matt. torn. xv. 7).
At times indeed Origen speaks as if he sup-
posed that the Word was actually manifested to
other orders of being in a manner corresponding
to their nature, even as He was revealed as soul
to the souls in Hades (Sel. in Ps. iii. 5, xi. p.
420 L.). In this sense also he thinks that " He-
became all things to all," an angel to angels (tn
Joh. torn. i. 34) ; and he does not shrink from
allowing that His Passion may be made available,
perhaps in some other shape, in the spiritual
world (De Princ. iv. fr. Graec. 2 ; comp. iv. 25,
Lat.).
The work of the Holy Spirit, according to
Origen, is fulfilled in believers. His office is
specially to guide to the fuller truth, which is
the inspiration of nobler life. Through Him
revelation comes home to men. He lays open
the deeper meanings of the word. Through
Him, " who proceeds from the Father," all
things are sanctified (De Princ. iii. 5, 8).
Through Him every divine gift which is
wrought by the Father and ministered by the
Son, gains its individual efficiency (in Joh. torn. ii.
6). Thus there is a unity in the divine operations,
which itself tends to establish a unity in created
beings. (For the doctrine of the Holy Spirit
generally see De Princ. i. 3, iii. 7 ; tn Jolt.
torn. ii. 6.)
3. The consummation of being. — These charac-
teristic lines of speculation lead to Origen's
view of the consummation of things. All human
thought must fail in the endeavour to give
distinctness to a conception which ought to
embrace the ideas of perfect rest and perfect
life. Origen's opinions are further embarrassed
by the constant confusion which arises from the
intermingling of ideas which belong to the close
of the present order (al&v) and the close of all
things. It is again impossible to see clearly how
the inalienable freedom of rational beings, which
originally led to the Fall, can be so disciplined
as to bring them at last to perfect harmony.
This however Origen holds; and though he is
unable to realise the form of future purification,
through which souls left unpurified by earthly
existence will be cleansed hereafter, he clings to
the belief that " the end must be like the begin-
ning " (De Princ. i. 6, 2), a perfect unity in God.
From this be excludes no rational creature. The
evil spirits which fell have not lost that spirit
by which they are akin to God, which in its
essence is inaccessible to evil (in Joh. xxxii. 11,
avrrlttKTov r&v xfiooVw to rvevfui rov 4»-
epibrov), though it can be overgrown and over-
powered (comp. De Princ. i. 8, 3). And, on the
other hand, freedom remains even when perfect
rest has been reached, and in this Origen appears
Digitized by
Google
138
0RIGENE8
to find the possibility of future declensions (De
Princ. ii. 3, 3 ; fragm. Or. ii. 2). Whether
natter, the medium through which rational
freedom finds expression (De Princ. iv. 35), will
at last cease to be, or be infinitely spiritualised,
he leaves apparently undetermined. The ques-
tion is beyond man's powers (id. i. 6, 4, ii. 2, ii.
3, 3, iii. 6, 1).
Origen evidently feels that the same is true of
many speculations which he follows some way.
He warns his readers that he is dealing with
subjects which man has no power to determine,
though he cannot but look upon them and ponder
them (De Princ. i. 6, 1 f., iii. 4, 5 «./.). And
so he presents, in imaginary outlines, the picture
of the soul's progress through various scenes of
chastisement or illumination (De Princ. i. 6, 3,
iii. 6, 6, iii. 5, 6 ff., and Redepenning's note), till
he can rest in the thought of a restoration in
which law and freedom, justice and love, are
brought to a perfect harmony (comp. De Orat.
§ 27, p. 227 L.).
This thought Origen pursues in his endeavour
to form some theory of future punishments. All
future punishments exactly answer to individual
sinfulness (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 16), and, like
punishments on earth, they are directed to the
amendment of the sufferers (c. Cels. iv. 10 ; Horn,
in JSzech. v. 1). Lighter offences can be chastised
on earth : the heavier remain to be visited here-
after (Horn, in Let. xiv. 4). In every case the
uttermost farthing must be paid, though final
-deliverance is promised (in Rom. v. 2 (.).
In this connexion Origen looked forward to a
fiery ordeal, through which men should pass in
the world to come. Every one already baptized
with water and Spirit would, he thought, if he
needed cleansing, be baptized by the Lord Jesus
in a river of ore, and so purified enter into
paradise (Horn, in Luc. xxiv.). And in this sense
also he looked forward to a (spiritual) conflagra-
tion of the world, by which all beings in need of
such discipline should be at once chastised and
healed (o. Cels. v. 15 ; comp. iv. 13).
On the other hand, since the future state is
the direct fruit of this, there are, so Origen held,
varieties of blessedness in heaven (in Rom. iv. 12),
corresponding to the life of saints (id. ix. 3,
p. 303), and foreshadowed by the divisions of
Israel (Horn, in Num. i. 3 ; id. xxviii. 2 ; Horn.
in Jos. xxv. 4). Speaking generally the believer
after death enters upon a being of fuller know-
ledge and loftier progress (De Princ. ii. 11, 6).
The resurrection of the body completes the full
transfiguration, without loss, of all that belongs
to his true self; and he begins a nobler develop-
ment of body and soul — moral, intellectual,
spiritual — by which he is brought nearer to the
throne of God (comp. De Princ. i. 3, 8; in
Matt. Comm. Ser. § 51 ; Horn. i. in Ps. xxxviii.
4 6). The relationships of earth come to an end
(in Matt. torn. xvii. 33 : on this point Origen is
not consistent). The visible ceases, and men
«njoy the eternal, for which now they hope (in
Rom. vii. 5). 4
* None of Origen's opinions was more vehemently
assailed than his teaching on the Resurrection. Even
his early and later apologists were perplexed In their
defence of him. Yet there Is no point on which bis In-
sight is more conspicuous. By keeping strictly to the
apostolic language he anticipated results which we bare
OMGENES
Thus human interest is removed from the
present earth to its heavenly antitype. And it
is probably due to this peculiarity of his teach-
ing that Origen nowhere, as far as I have ob-
served, dwells on the doctrine of Christ's return,
which occupies a large place in most schemes of
Christian belief. The coming of Christ in glory
is treated as the spiritual revelation of His true
nature (De Princ. iv. 25), though Origen says
that he by no means rejects " the second pre-
sence (4-rtSrnila) of the Son of God more simply
understood " (in Matt. torn. xiL 30).
VIII. Characteristics. — A few words, neces-
sarily fragmentary and inadequate, may be added
to indicate Origen's position in the great line of
Christian teachers ; though the sketch of his
works and opinions which has been given (apart
from any comment) will be sufficient to convey
a fair idea of his merits and of his failings. He
is above all things a Christian philosopher. With
a firmer conviction of the universal sovereignty
of truth, a larger grasp of facts, and a deeper
sympathy with the restless questionings of the
soul than any other father, he claims for the
domain of Christianity every human interest and
power : he affirms that it is capable of co-
ordinating all thought and all experience. He
excludes indeed all irrational beings from the
final unity to which he looks (De Princ. iii. 6, 2) ;
but by giving a soul to the sun and stars he
strives after a fuller feeling of fellowship be-
tween man and nature than his knowledge
enables him to support.
It cannot be surprising that Origen failed to
give a consistent and harmonious embodiment to
his speculations. His writings represent an as-
piration rather than a system, principles of re-
search and hope rather than determined formulas.
At the same time his enthusiasm continually
mars the proportion of his work. His theorizing
needs the discipline of active life, without which
there can be no real appreciation of history or
of the historical development of truth. The
absence of a clear historic sense is indeed the
spring of Origen's chief failures. Yet even in
regard to the practical apprehension of the
divine education of the world it is only necessary
to compare him on one side with Philo and on
the other with Augustine, to feel how his grasp
of the significance of the Incarnation gave him
a sovereign power to understand the meaning
and destiny of life.
In the pursuit and expression of his great
thoughts Origen sought knowledge from every
hardly yet secured. He saw that it is the "spirit "which
moulds the frame through which It is manifested ; that
the •■ body " Is the same not by any material continuity,
but by the permanence of that which gives the law, the
*• ratio" (Atfyot), as he calls it, of Its constitution. No
exigencies of controversy, it must be remembered. brought
Origen to bis conclusion. It was in his Judgment the
clear teaching of St. Paul. The subject has been care-
fully discussed by C. Ramera In a special essay : Da O.
Lehre mm d. Atiferttekung d. Fleitchet, Trier, 1861. His
judgment is worth quoting :— " Die Lehre dee Origenes
von der Auferstehung ... In alien wesentllchen Punk-
ten mit der kathollschen Lehre Ubereinstlmmt . . . Und
wie sonderbar auch die Lehre dee Origenes In manchen
Punkten . . . kllngen mag, so mochte es doch vlellelcht
sohwer ru entscheiden seto, ob sle . . . Bonderbarer 1st,
•Is die Lehre, welche in spiiterer Zeit manche Scholastiker
liber dlesen Punkt aufstellten " (} J J t).
Digitized by
Google
ORIGENES
quarter, by conversation and by reading. Hi*
attendance on philosophic lectures at Alexandria
has been noticed. And in different parts of his
writings he presents parallels with the teaching
of various schools of Greek thought (comp.
Boehringer, pp. 226, 395, If.). These may be
due partly to the direct influence which they
exercised upon him and partly to the speculative
atmosphere of the time.*
But while Origen was ready to acknowledge to
the fullest the claims of reason (comp. Bom. in
Luc. i. p. 88 L.), he lays stress on the new data
which are given by revelation to the solution of
the problems of philosophy (De Pri'uc. i. 5, 4).
Again and again he points out the insufficiency
of reason, of the independent faculties of man,
to attain to that towards which it is turned.
Reason enables man to recognise God when He
makes Himself known, to receive a revelation
from Him in virtue of his affinity with the
Divine Word, but it does not enable the creature
to derive from within the knowledge for which
it longs. It follows that the capacity for know-
ing God belongs to man as man, and not to man
as a philosopher. Origen therefore acknowledges
the nobility of Plato's words when he said that
" it is a hard matter to find out the Maker and
Father of the Universe, and impossible for one
who has found Him to declare Him to all men."
But he adds that Plato affirms too much and too
little (c. Cels. vii. 43). As Christians " we de-
clare that human nature is not in itself com-
petent in any way to seek God and find Him
purely without the help of Him who is sought,
of Him who is found by those who confess after
they have done all in their power that they have
yet need of Him . . ." (Comp. Clem. Al. Cohort.
§6.)
The fact that our results on earth will be to
the last fragmentary and tentative does not in-
terfere with the reality of the spirit which
quickens the Gospel. "Sow," he says, "we seek
for a while, then we shall see clearly " (De JPrinc.
ii. 11, 5). But both in the search and in the
fruition the object is the same. The fulness of
Trnth, which is finally nothing less than a
manifold revelation of God leading np to absolute
fellowship with Him, is that towards which the
believer is led by the Spirit alike through
thought and feeling and action.
For Origen, while he looks upon knowledge as
the noblest ambition and divinest reward of
rational beings, never dissociates it from action.
This made Christian philosophy the common
possession of all. (Comp. o. Cels. vi. 2; iii.
44, ff.) No teacher of the present day could
insist with greater earnestness npon the im-
portance of conduct than he does. There is
absolutely nothing in which he does not see
ethical influences. His thought wearies itself
in following out the effects of action, for all
action is to be referred to God (Horn, in Num.
xzv. 3). Without perpetuating the associations
of the present, he strives to give definiteness to
oar conceptions of the continuity of the spiritual
life. He carries the sense of responsibility up to
the highest orders of finite existence. His system
is a system of absolute idealism, but of idealism
a* a spring for action. " God cares," he says,
• A list of the authors whom he quotes Is given In
Fabrfcms, BiU. Or. vtL
ORIGENES
139
" not only for the whole, as Celsus thinks, but
beyond the whole in an especial manner for each
rational being " (c. Cels. iv. 99). Thus in his
doctrine of the re-incorporation of souls there is
nothing accidental, nothing capricious, as in
Plato's famous Myth. The belief, according to
him, represents to human apprehension a judg-
ment of Infinite Righteousness executed by In-
finite Love. It is an embodiment, if I mar so
express it, of two principles, which he assumes
as axioms — the first that every gift of God is
perfect, and the second that God's gift to His
rational creatures was not virtue, which it could
not be by the nature of the case, but the capacity
for virtue.
In the endeavour to fashion a Philosophy of
Christianity it may be fully admitted that
Origen did not practically recognise the limits
and imperfection of the human mind which he
constantly points out. His gravest errors are
attempts to solve that which is insoluble. The
question of the origin of the soul, for example, is
still beset by the same difficulties as Origen
sought to meet, but they are ignored. So too it
is with regard to his speculations on an endless
succession of worlds. Thought must break down
soon in the attempt to co-ordinate the finite and
the infinite. But with whatever errors in de-
tail, Origen laid down the true lines on which
the Christian apologist must defend the faith
against Polytheism, Judaism, Gnosticism, Mate-
rialism. These forms of opinion without the
Church and within it were living powers of
threatening proportions in his age, and he vin-
dicated the Gospel against them as the one
absolute revelation, prepared through the dis-
cipline of Israel, historical in its form, spiritual
in it* destiny.
In this respect the principles which he affirmed
and strove to illustrate have a present value.
They are fitted to correct the Africanism which,
since the time of Augustine, has dominated
Western theology; and, at the same time, they
anticipate in many ways difficulties which have
come into prominence in later times. In the face
of existing controversies, it is Invigorating to feel
that when as yet no necessity forced upon him
the consideration of the problems which are now
most frequently discussed, a Christian teacher,
the master and the friend of saints, taught the
moral continuity and destination of all being,
interpreted the sorrows and sadnesses of the
world as part of a vast scheme of purificatory
chastisement, found in Holy Scripture not the
letter only but a living voice eloquent with
spiritual mysteries, made the love of truth, in all
its amplitude and in all its depth, the right and
the end of rational beings, and reckoned the fuller
insight into the mysteries of nature as one of the
joys of a future state.
Such thoughts bring Origen himself before us.
Of the traits of his personal character little need
be said. He bore unmerited sufferings without
a murmur. He lived only to work. He com-
bined in a signal degree sympathy with zeal.
As a controversialist he sought to win his adver-
sary and not simply to silence him (comp.
Euseb. B.E. vi. 33). He had the boldest con-
fidence in the troth which he held, and the ten-
derest humility in regard of his own weakness
(m Joh. torn, xxxii. 18 ; tn Matt. torn. xvi. 13).
When he ventures freely in the field of interpre-
Digitized by
Google
140
ORIGENES
ORIGENES
tations, he asks that he may be supported by the
prayers of his hearers. His faith was catholic,
and therefore he welcomed every kind of know-
ledge as tributary to its fulness. His faith was
living, and therefore he was assured that no age
could seal any one expression of it as complete.
In virtue of this open-hearted trust, he kept
unchilled to the last the passionate devotion of
his youth. And therefore he was enabled to
leave to the Church the conviction, attested by
a life of martyrdom, that all things are its
heritage because all things are Christ's.
IX. EDITIONS. — The earliest edition of any part
of Origen's works was an edition of the Homilies,
which is described by Panzer (Annates Typo-
graphici, iv. 13 ; comp. p. 462, and Maittaire,
i. p. 351) as Homcliae B. Qregorii papae et Ori-
genis Presbyteri ...; and again by Maittaire
(Annates T^pographici, i. p. 355; comp. p. 351)
simply as Origenis flomiliae, fol. 1475, without
the place of publication or the name of the
printer/
This was followed by a Latin translation of
the books against Ceisus, made by "Christ.
Persona, Romanua," and printed at Rome by
Herolt, 1581. The dedication to the Doge and
Council of Venice, contains a spirited appeal to
a war against the Turks. The book was re-
printed at Venice in 1514.
An edition of the Homilies on Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, and Judges, " Hiero-
nymo intcrprete," was published by Aldus at
Venice in 1503; another edition followed in
1512.
The Commentary on the Romans, " Hieronymo
interprete," was printed at Venice in 1506, and
again in 1512.
The Homilies on Canticles, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, Matthew (16), Luke (6), John (2), with
the books on Job and Canticles, were printed at
Venice, 1513 (Panzer, x. 40 ; Maittaire, ii. 242).
Meanwhile a collected [Latin] edition of the
works of Origen had appeared. This was published
at Paris by Jacques Merlin, doctor of the college
of Navarre (t 1541), and dedicated to Michael
[Boudet], bishop of Langres, " inter Francorum
pares facile principi." The dedicatory letter, in
which Origen is said to hold the same place
among philosophical theologians (inter theosophos)
" as the sun among the stars, or the eagle among
birds," is dated 1512.
The contents of the edition are as follows : —
Part I. Dedicatory Letter; a general Index;
the Homilies on Genesis (17), Exodus (13),
Lcciticus (16), Numbers (28), on Joshua (26),
Judges (9), 1 Kings (1). Part II. The Com-
mentaries on Job (three books), on Psalm xxxvi.
(Horn, v.), Ps. xxxviii. (Horn, ii.), on Canticles
(Horn. ii. with a second, spurious, commentary),
on Isaiah (Horn, ix.), on Jeremiah (Horn, xiv.),
on Ezekiel (Horn. xiv.). Part III. Merlin's
Apology for Origen; the Homilies on St. Mat-
thew (35), on St. Lulie (39) ; Miscellaneous
Homilies (10) ; the Commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans (ten books) ; Jerome's notice of
Origen (De Virr. HI.). Part IV. Trithemins's
notice of Origen ; the Books against Ceisus (8) ;
On Post Principles (four books) ; Laments. ;
Pamphilus's Apology; Rufiinus On the falsifica-
tion of Origen's Books; A Commendation of
Origen, by Jo. Badius, the original publisher of
the work.
This edition was republished at Paris in 1519,
1522, 1530, and at Venice in 1516 (Fabritios,
Bibl. Graeea, vii. 235).
The edition of Merlin was succeeded by that
of Erasmus, who, at the time of his death (1536),
was engaged upon an edition of Origen (Latin),
which was issued by Beatns Rhenanus, and dedi-
cated to Hermann, archbishop of Cologne, in the
same year.
The edition of Erasmus is more complete than
that of Merlin ; as Erasmus translated into Latin
the remains of the Greek commentary on Mat-
thew, torn, xiii., xiv., xr., xvi, and added an in-
teresting and characteristic criticism of Origen
and his writings. This edition was reissued in
1571 by J. J. Grynaeus, and dedicated to T.
Erastus, with the addition of Ambr. Ferrarius's
translation of the Commentaries on St. John, and
L. Humfrey's Latin translation of The Dialogue
against the Marcionites.
For meanwhile two Latin translations of the
Commentary on St. John had been published,
the first by Ambrosius Ferrarius from a MS. in
the library of St. Mark at Venice in 1551, and
the second from a MS. of the Royal Library at
Paris by Joachim Perionius, « about 1554 "
(Huet).
An edition by G. Genebrard next appeared at
Paris, 1574 (reprinted 1604, 1619; Fabricius,
Bibl. Gr. 235), which contains Perionius's ver-
sion of the Commentary on St. John, and a
version of the Philocalia by Genebrard, and of
the correspondence with Africanns by Hervetus.
The first edition of any part of the Greek text
of Origen was that of the beginning of the letter
in reply to Julius Africanus, published by D.
Hoeschel at Augsburg, 1602 (Fabricius, Bibl.
Gr. 224). This was followed by an edition of
the Books against Ceisus, together with the
Oration of Gregory, published at Augsburg in
1605 by the 6ame scholar.' These were followed
' The book seems to have contained homilies of Ore-
gory, Origen, and Leo, which were published separately
or variously combined.
i Among the Gale MSS. In the library of Trinity College,
Cambridge, is a MS. of the PkiUxalia which had been
prepared for publication by D. Hoeschel. It Is referred
to by Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. vii. 221, but the account is
Inaccurate. The title-page and colophon are worth
quoting: "Philocalia Origenis ex ejusscrlptlsconcinata
variis a Basillo M. et Greg. Nazianzeno, ex codlce Cyprlo-
descrlpta manu Graecae linguae studlosi, posits a re-
gione Gilbert! Genebrardi Interpretatlone. Illoslrisaimo
et generosissimo Dn. Henrico Uuottonio, serenlssiml et
potentlssiml Regis Magnae Brltanniae apud Venetos Ora-
tor!, fellcem ex Italia in Germanism gratuUtus reditum
David Hoeschelfus A.
" Opus boo Origenis oWkJoto* wtpucaXAlc nu mXv
iwJieAit L. M. observantiae ergo D.D."
It Is not easy to fix the date of the " return " from
Italy. It probably was after Sir H. Wotton retired from
his post at Venice in 1610. The Greek text has at the
close : Prtd. Kon. Sept. 1606. The Latin text, which to
written on the first side of the same page. Anno 1804,
Nonis Septembris.
On a fly-leaf is written : " Hoeschellus edldit llbroa
Origenis contra Celsum cum suis annotationlbus in qui-
bus saepe cltat bujus codicls verba quod ex eo quoque
fecit Tarinus In notis ad PhllocalUm.
•• In hoc nonnulla stint quae In libris contra Celsum
non habentnr quae tamen lbi habere oportnlt.
" Collatus est hlc codex cum alio Nov! Collegll apod
Oxonlenses utl ooujiclo."
Digitized by
Google
OBIGENES
by the Philocalia, published by Jo. Tarinns in
1618-9 (and again 1624).
The Books against Celsus and the PMocalia
were again revised and published at Cambridge
in 1658 and 1677, by W. Spencer, Fellow of
Trinity College.
Meanwhile seven Homilies on Jeremiah had
been published from a Vatican MS. by M. Ghisler,
Lyons, 1629 ; and the whole collection of nineteen
Homilies (under the name of Cyril Alex.), from
a MS. of the Escurial, by B. Corderius, at Ant-
werp, 1648 (Fabricius, B3A. Gr. vii. 214). To
these was added the Exhortation to Martyrdom,
published by J. R. Wetstein, Basle, 1674.
Hitherto there had been no collected edition
of Origen's Greek writings. The want had been
long felt ; and as far back as 1635 the general
assembly of French clergy had determined that
editions of" John of Damascus, Origen, Maiimus,
Ephraem Syrus, among the Greek Fathers,"
should be published, "to serve as authorities in
controversies of religion." The work was com-
mitted to Aubert, doctor of the Sorbonne. Col-
lations of Italian (and so probably of other) MSS.
were provided, which afterwards came into the
hands of Tarinns (Huet, Praef.), but nothing more
was done (Delarue, i. p. 5).
The purpose however was taken np in other
quarters. Herbert Thorndike (t 1672), Fellow
of Trinity College, Cambridge, contemplated a
complete edition of the works of Origen (Huet,
Praef.), for which he made important collec-
tions, still preserved in the library of his col-
lege, including the Codex Holmiensis ; bat the
plan was not carried ont. Probably Thorndike
was deterred from executing it no less by the
troubles of the times than by the knowledge
that P. D. Huet, still a layman, but afterwards
(1685) bishop of Avranches, was engaged upon
a similar task.
The work of Huet (Origehm in sacras Scrip-
tvras Commentaria quaecunque Qraece reperiri
potuerant, Rothomagi, 1668, 2 torn., republished
at Paris, 1679, and at Cologne, 1685), dedicated
in remarkable language to Louis XIV., is the
foundation of the critical study of Origen. It
is however only a part of the original design,
which included three sections : — (1) the ifa-
ytfruci ; (2) the treatises, avmiy/uiTa ; (3) the
supposititious writings. Of the second and third
parts nothing has been published.
Tarinns refused to allow Huet to use the col-
lations of Italian MSS. which were in his posses-
sion, though he was through age unable to make
any use of them himself (Huet, Praef.}. Huet
had therefore to trust to a copy of the Cod.
Holm-, which he had made in Sweden, and to Cod.
Beg-, for his Greek text of the Commentary on
St. Matthew ; and to the Cod. Beg., with Fer-
rarius's Latin translation of the Cod. Venet., for
the Commentary on St. John.
Huet's collection of the 'EfiryirruecC does not
include the fragments found in Catenae. He
had originally intended to include these, bnt he
abandoned the purpose, partly from the immen-
sity of the work required for collecting them,
and partly from the uncertainty which attaches
to extracts often abridged, altered, and mis-
named {Praef.). It is also greatly to be re-
gretted that he did not reprint the old Latin
version of the Commentaries of St. Matthew,
which has a value of its own. Still, though
ORIGENES
141
his materials were imperfect and his work in-
complete, Huet holds the first rank among the
editors of Origen.
An addition to the published Greek works
of Origen was made by the appearance of the
treatise On Prayer, which was edited at Oxford,
1686, and republished, after the recension of
R. D. Wetstein, at Amsterdam in 1694. These
editions were followed in 1728 by a far more
complete one of Reading, London 1728, enriched
by the notes of R. Bentley (reprinted by Delarue,
i. pp. 911 ff.).
Bentley seems to have worked much at Origen.
A copy of Huet in the library of Trinity College
contains a collation of the Cod. Holm, of the
Commentary on St. Matthew, and also of the
Cod. Bodl. of the Commentary on St. John, in
his handwriting, with many conjectures ; but I
am not aware that he contemplated any edition
of these writings. 11
About the same time Th. Mangey (1684-1755),
the editor of Philo(1742), was also engaged upon
Origen ; and notes and collections of his are pre-
served in the British Museum (MSS. Add. 6428).
In the meanwhile the resolution of the French
clergy found a tardy fulfilment through the
labours of the great Benedictines of St. Maur.
B. de Montfaucon edited the remains of the
Hexapta in 1715 (Paris), carrying far forward the
work of Flaminius Nobilius (Romae, 1587) and
J. Drusius (Amhemiae, 1622). And the first
two volumes of a complete edition of Origen
(Oriqenis opera omnia quae Qraece vel Latins
tantum extant et ejus nomine circumferuntur) ap-
peared at Paris in 1733, under the editorship of
Charles Delarue, a priest of the same society.
(Tom. i. Letters, Treatises, with the spnrious
Dialogue and the Philosophvmena. Tom. ii.
Exegetical writings on the Old Testament as far
as the Psalms, with the anonymous commentary
on Job.) The work had been undertaken by the
wish of Montfaucon, and these two volumes had
been sent to the press as early as 1725 (t. iii. p. vii.).
The work was dedicated to Pope Clement XII.
The third volume (exegetical writings on the
Old Testament from Proverbs, and on St. Matthew
and St. Luke) appeared at Paris in 1740, a few
months after the death of the editor (Oct. 1739),
who left however the fourth volume, almost ready
for the press as it was hoped, to the care of his
nephew Charles Vincent Delarue, whom he bad
invited to help him in his work. The fourth
volume however proved to be in a most im-
perfect state. For six years the younger Delarue
was called away to complete Sabatier's Latin
Bible, and he was not able to issue the fourth
volume of the Origen till 1759 (remaining
exegetical writings on the New Testament, with
an appendix containing Pamphilus's Apology, Gre-
gory's Panegyric, Huet's Origeniana, and selec-
tions from Bull's Defensio).
aV It would be most ungrateful not to acknow-
ledge the service which the two Delarues ren-
dered to Origen ; but their edition is very far
from satisfying the requirements of scholarship.
The collations of MSS. are fragmentary and even
inaccurate. The text is left only partially re-
vised. The notes are inadequate.
h He and his friend J. Walker communicated to Dela-
rue Grabe'a collections from English Catenae : Delarue,
11. praef. L
Digitized by
Google
142
OBIGENES
But though this is so, the later editions of
Origen's works have added very little to the
completeness of the Benedictine edition. This
is the more to be regretted, as large additions
hare been made, and still can be made, to the
Origenian fragments. In the appendix to the
last volume of Galland's BibHotheoa, 1 published
at Venice in 1781 after his death, there are given
copious notes of Origen on Job, Psalms, St.
Matthew, and St. Luke, and some notes on the
Pentateuch, the historical books of the Old
Testament, and Proverbs.
Not less important are the additional notes
from Catenae on the gospels of St. Matthew
and St. Luke, the Acts, the Epistles to the
Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, published by
Cramer in his Catena (Oxford, 1840-1844), of
which the notes on 1 Corinthians and Ephesians
are of the highest importance.
To these must be added the notes on Proverbs
published by Mai (Patrum Nova Bibliotheca,
Komae, 1854) from a Vatican MS., and some
other fragments noticed under the heads of
the different books. Many fragments also
have yet to be collected from Catenae (e. g.
that on Pent. Josh. Jud. B. M. Burn. 34, 35,
saec. xv.)
These materials have been either wholly
neglected or only partially used in the latest
editions of Origen; and the editors who came
after the Delarues have done practically nothing
to improve or illustrate the text of their author.
The edition of Oberthiir (Wirceburgi, 1780-1794)
is a simple reprint of the Greek and Latin texts of
Delarue. The handy edition of Lommatzsch
(Berlin, 1831-1848) promised much of the
highest interest (i. Praef.), but the promises
have been unfulfilled. The textual indices
scattered through many volumes are complete
and serviceable, but with this exception (to
which Petermann's account of the Venetian MS.
of the Commentary on St. Matthew may be added:
iii. iv. Praef. \ the edition has no independent
value. It contains none of the additional matter
supplied by Galland and Cramer, but it gives
the Philocatia which Delarue did not reprint.*
Migne's reprint of Delarue, in his Patrologia
(Paris, 1857) has the additions from Galland,
most of the additions from Mai, and one frag-
ment from Cramer as a supplement.
Enough has been said to shew that there is as
yet no edition of Origen worthy of the subject,
and no complete collection of his writings in any
shape. To prepare such an edition would be a
work for a society of scholars and for a uni-
versity press. [W., 1882.]
OBIGENES (2), a layman, probably a
professor of rhetoric, whose discourses and
writings in defence of the truth during a time
of persecution (which may be identified with
the reign of Julian, when Christians were for-
1 It may be worth while to notice that Galland was
of French and not of Italian descent. In the license
printed in his BMiothtca, he is described as Andrea
o'alUmd, Prete deli' Oratorio.
k As Lommatzsch most unaccountably does not give
the pages of Delarue, it may be well to mention that on
an average one page of Delarue is equal to one and six-
sevenths of Lommfttiach. The respective Initial pages
of the works are given above.
OBIGENISTIC CONTBOVEBSIES
bidden to teach secular literature) are highly
commended by Basil, in a letter sent him by his
sons, whose visit had caused him lively satisfac-
tion. (Basil, Ep. 17 [384].) [E. V.]
OBIGENES (8), Platonic philosopher (Diet
G. # B. Biog. ; Tillem. iii. 283, 284). [C. H.]
OEIGENIANI. Epiphanius, who makes
the errors of the celebrated Origen the subject
of the sixty-fourth section of his work on here-
sies, describes in his sixty-third chapter heretics
whom he calls Origeniani, to whom he gives for
distinction the epithet airrxpoi ; for he professes
ignorance from what Origen they derived their
name. He attributes to them no doctrinal
errors, unless we count under this head a state-
ment that they had in circulation among them
the apocryphal acts of Andrew ; but he states
that though unmarried, and to outward appear-
ance living the monastic life, they privately
indulged in gross sexual impurity, only taking
care to prevent a betrayal of it to the world
through conception of children. Such a charge
is easy to bring, but is difficult either to prove
or to refute. Epiphanius states that these
people themselves brought similar charges
against the Catholics ; and he also tells a story
how the like accusation had been brought after
his death against a Palestinian bishop who had
been in the number of the confessors; bat
whether the charge was true or false Epiphanius
will not venture to say. The theological ani-
mosities of the time made men on both sides
so ready to believe evil of each other, that
the historical enquirer may now feel himself
justified in charitably disregarding such stories
on either side. There is no authority indepen-
dent of Epiphanius for the existence of snch a
sect of Origeniani ; and he himself appears only
to know of them by hearsay, and to have had
bnt very vague information concerning them.
The most probable account of the matter seems
to be that the people of whom Epiphanius had
heard were called Origeniani because they really
were doctrinal disciples of Origen ; and that a
charge of immorality was brought against them
by their opponents ; but whether they had done
ot said anything to justify snch a charge, is a
point on which we have no trustworthy evidence.
See August. Eaer. § 63; Joan. Damasc. Haer. 42.
[G. S.]
OBIGENISTIC CONTBOVEBSIES.
I. — Controversy dubino Origen's Lite.
We have already seen in the article on
Origen, p. 100, that he was condemned at Alex-
andria during his life ; the precise cause of the
condemnation is less certain than the fact. Un-
questionably, personal and formal irregularities
entered largely into the complaint of Demetrius.
Origen had preached at Caesarea, though not a
priest himself, before an assembly of bishops
and priests. He had accepted ordination in a
foreign diocese without consulting his own
bishop, as in duty bound ; and though disquali-
fied by the law of the church on account of a
youthful indiscretion. It is true that no doc-
trinal charges are attributed to the time of this
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES
censure, but it must not be forgotten that
Origen had already written the irepl ifx&v and
the arpa/ucTfis, embodying his characteristic
doctrines; while there is no reason to suppose
Demetrius to have been proof against the jenlous
prejudice excited by the power and fame of an
ecclesiastical subordinate. At any rate, he took
action against Origen, convened a council of
priests and bishops, and obtained a decree ex-
pelling Origen from Alexandria, and forbidding
him to reside or teach there, but leaving him
his priesthood. Dissatisfied with these measures,
Demetrius subsequently united with a few
Egyptian bishops to deprive Origen of the
priesthood also. Those who had voted with the
bishop before now signed this new decree (cf. Pho-
tius, cod. 118, avrnwoypafiivreey (ml rf iiroipaVei
TsV ov/ofr^dnov almji ytyanifUyav).*
To the account given above Hieronymus adds
that Demetrius obtained a condemnation of
Origen from Rome. (Ep. xxxiii.* Higne, P.,
vol. xxii. [Bened. xxix]). If this be so, though
there is little evidence to support the view, it
must have been from a synod under Pontianus
in A.D. 231 or 233. Doellinger (Hippolytus and
Callistta ; Eng. trans, pp. 244, foil., and p. 262)
with Langen (KBmische Kirche, pp. 267, 268),
connects this condemnation with Origen's conduct
in the controversy between Hippolytus and Cal-
listus. One fact is clear : that the condemnation,
if, or by whomsoever pronounced, could have had
little weight even at Alexandria itself, since the
doctrines and the personality impugned found
devoted admirers and champions among the
highest religions authorities in the city, even
when Origen had removed, leaving his work
toothers.
IX — Origen's Followers at Alexandria.
(1) Heraclas, a pupil of Origen, succeeded
his master at the catechetical school, and subse-
quently Demetrius in the bishopric (Eusebius,
H. E. vi. ; cc. 3, 15). He took no steps to effect
his master's return, but we cannot therefore
assume that he acquiesced in his condemnation.
Doellinger (1. c. pp. 42-46) advocates the theory
of a second expulsion by Heraclas, but the
evidence of Oennadius (De Script. Eccl. c. 33)
even when combined with the reference in a
letter written three centuries later to a conncil
at Alexandria (Mansi, vol. ix. p. 514), and one
or two other vague illusions, is not of any real
weight. The name of Heraclas was more
famous than that of Demetrius, and the substi-
tution might be easily made by careless or
unscrupulous opponents. (2) Dionysius, who
succeeded by similar steps to the bishopric of
Alexandria (Euseb. H. E. vi. cc. 29, 30), shewed
his fidelity to Origen by open sympathy with
his master in misfortune (t'6. vi. 46), and by
sorrow at his death. (Steph. Gobar in Photius,
cod. 232.) A little while before Origen's death,
• Huet (Orioeniana, 1, U. 15) stales that the bishops
who bad voted with Origen at the first council were now
compelled to sign the decree of Demetrius at the second.
Bat in the phrase wti^n^iv avry, the word aimy refers
to Demetrius, not to Origen, and the position of km.
makes the meaning still more clear, vid. Migne, vol.
xvil., p. 6«9, note (69).
» Migne, Patrclogia Graeeo-Latina ; Migne, P. Palro-
loffiae cuma eamfUtu*.
ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES 143
Dionysius inscribed his De Martyrio to him, and
in the controversy with the Chiliasts he defended
Origen's allegorical system of interpretation
against the literalism of Nepos (Euseb. H. E.
vii. cc 24-25); and he with his master was
claimed as an ally by the Arians through his
use of the term frroVrcuru, and for his alleged
subordination of the Son. Basil actually attacked
him as an Arian (Photius, Cod. 232), while
he was defended by Athanasius in the treatise
which bears his name (Athan. De Sent. Dionysii
de Synod, c. xxiv. cf De Decret. Syn. Nic c xxv.
Migne, P. vol. xxv. pp. 479, foil. and515, foil.). (3)
Theognostus, a celebrated teacher at Alexandria,
wrote seven books, fororvrdatu, in imitation of
Origen's wepl Apxuv, containing similar specula-
tions with reference to the nature of the Son,
the Holy Spirit, and angels (Photius, Cod. 106).
On the third point his views were orthodox, on
the second avowedly heretical ; his speculations
on the third were only academical exercises
(Athan. 1. c. Photius, «&.). (4) Another of
Origen's followers at Alexandria was Pierius, a
priest famous for his piety and learning. He
was at the head of the Alexandrian school of
his day, the teacher of Pamphilus, and the
author of twelve books in which he taught the
subordination of the Spirit to the Father and
the Son, possibly also the pre-existence of the
human soul. His devotion and resemblance to
his great predecessor secured for him the title of
the "Second Origen" (Hieron. De Vir. III. c.
76, Photius, coo*. 119, and Scholia; Routh, Sell.
Sacr. iii. p. 425). [Fragments of the writings
of Pierius and Theognostus are to be found in
Higne, vol. x. pp. 239-246.]
III. — Controversy in Asia.
At Alexandria, as we have seen, the influence
of Origen still remained supreme, but elsewhere,
within a short period after his death, his doctrines
were vehemently attacked. Foremost among the
assailants was Methodius, formerly of Olympus,
bishop of Patara in the early part of the 4th
century. Socrates, alluding to Origen's foes,
gives him a place in the " Quaternion of Re-
vilers " (rerpiiervs KtucaKAyur), but states that
in the Mtimv he recanted (<V woAuwSfar), ex-
pressing admiration for Origen (Socrat. H. E.
vi. 13). Eusebius, as Walch points out (Ketz.
vol. vii. p. 408. cf. Hieron. c. Buf. 1, § 11),
inverts this order of events ; and the facts are
quite uncertain, for we know neither the relative
order of composition nor in whose mouth the
recantation is placed. In dialogue Methodius
would often state conflicting views, and in his
other works such abusive expressions as J>
xcWavpe are by no means rare when he refers
to Origen.' The chief points that he attacked
in the teaching of Origen were his views on the
Creation, the relation of soul and body, Resur-
rection, and Freewill ; but he also includes many
subordinate elements in his hostile criticism. It
often happens that Methodius, like many other
critics of Origen, does not understand the prin-
ciple which he attacks, and so bases the whole
argument on.a false foundation. For instance.
• Vlncenii (vol. v. app. 11. p. 88) supposes that
Methodius was convinced of misconception by the
apology of Pamphilus and Eusebius.
Digitized by
Google
144 ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES
be impugns Origen's doctrine of eternal genera-
tion. Origen bad argued that if the Creator's
existence in time were prior to the creation, this
would involve change in the unchangeable ; and
that therefore the elementary interpretation of
the Mosaic account was inadequate. Methodius
replies that cessation from creation is change,
and argues for the prior existence of the Creator
on the analogy of the human sculptor and his
handiwork, the statue. He does not apprehend
that the term "creation " is an idea rather than
an action ; Origen would reply that there is no
cessation of creative activity as also there is no
beginning, and that the work of the Great
Renewer is not limited to moments of time.
Methodius also attacks Origen's saying that the
body is the fetter of the soul, and was added to
it after the fall of man from innocence and
purity ; that the clothes of our first parents
(the " coats of skins ") were their mortal bodies,
and that the soul is the only essential part of
man (vid. Migne,vol.xviii. p. 267). Methodius
asks how, if the sonl cannot sin without the body,
the soul can have been sent into the body on
account of sin; and if the body is a fetter,
whether it is for the good or the evil? The
good need no such restraint; and it does not
check the evil, as we see in the case of Cain.
In this same connection he also attacks Origen's
doctrine of the Resurrection in a spiritual, not a
material body, his allegorical interpretation of
the " coats of skins," and his application of
Ezekiel's prophetic promise (Photius, cod. 234.
De Sesurr.). Methodius seems also to have
written against Origen with reference to the
witch of Endor, and his explanation of the
raising of Samuel. Methodius supposed Origen
to believe that the sonl of Samuel was in the
power of Satan, and that the apparition was in
reality the prophet's spirit. This theory may
possibly have led to the charge of sorcery sub-
sequently made against Origen, though the
allegation was one which he shared with many
other saints of pre-eminent learning. (De Py-
thonissa ; ire pi tyyturTpiftiSov. Hieron. De Vir.
III. lxxxiii.) Another point of attack was the
doctrine, that while in doing evil our choice is
free to act or to refrain from acting, in thinking
-evil we are not free to admit or to repel tempta-
tion (Photius, De lab. Arbit., cod. 236 cf. cod.
234). From the reply of Pamphilus and Euse-
bius it would appear that Methodius also im-
pugned the orthodoxy of Origen in his conception
of the Divine Nature.
Antagonism intensified devotion ; the books
under ban were studied with increased ardour ;
nor did Origen's adherents allow the charges
brought against their master to pass without
challenge. Apologists were numerous (Photius,
<xd. 118). Pierius and Theognostus, already
mentioned among Origen's successors, and other
teachers of equal note, took up his cause. But
the first place among these treatises belongs to
the apology composed by Pamphilus and Eusebius
of Caesarea in the first decade of the 4th century,
probably about A.D. 306. It was famous at the
time, and nearly a century after its appearance
it again became the subject of embittered con-
troversy. Pamphilus had been a pupil of Pierius,
but had subsequently removed to Caesarea, where
he made his home, celebrated for sanctity, learn-
ing, and devotion to Origen, whose commentaries
ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES
he had transcribed and studied with incessant
care (Euseb. H. E. vi. 32). Eusebius had been
attracted to him by kindred sympathies, and the
pair continued in an intimate and lifelong friend-
ship. With regard to Origen they were of one
mind, and together they prepared a defence of
his character and doctrine. Pamphilus seems to
have been the originator ; perhaps the first book
was his sole work, but he was soon joined by
Eusebius, and by the year a.d. 309, five books
were completed and inscribed to Patermuthius
and the confessors of Palestine — a dedication not
inappropriate, seeing that part of the work had
been composed in prison. After the death of
Pamphilus in the persecution, Eusebius added a
sixth book to the work, but of the whole only
one book has come down to us, and that in the
Latin translation of Rufinus (Photius, Cod. 118;
Euseb. H. E. vi. 33 ; Soc. H. E., iii. 7 ; Hieron. De
Vir. III. lxxxv.). This apology must have com-
prised a general defence on the entire case, for
though no doubt composed with special reference
to Methodius, it also embraced the whole range
of controversy, vindicating Origen's life (Euseb.
1. c), discussing in the second book the validity
of his irregular ordination (to. c. 36), and in the
sixth the influence of his literary labours (to. c.
36). Some of the charges advanced by Metho-
dius are dealt with in the first book ; the
question of freewill was discussed in one of the
later books now lost to us. The apology opens
with a general introduction setting forth the
principles of Origen, and then proceeding to
details, vindicates him by appealing to his own
words to refute the misrepresentations of his
traducers. Much of the treatise, therefore,
consists of quotations. Its contents have been
described and its authenticity established in
a preceding article. [Eusebius op Caesarea
(23), § 28. ] It is therefore only necessary to
recapitulate the chief points on which issue
was raised in Origen's behalf. The first set
of charges refuted refers mainly to the Nature
of the Divine Son. It is demonstrated that
Origen believed (i) the Son to be of one sub-
stance with the Father; (ii) not produced
out of the substance of the Father by extension
(" per prolationem," Tpoj3oAfj) according to the
valentinian doctrine, which would divide and
diminish the Divine substance ; (iii) that Christ
was not a mere man, and (iv) that his life on
earth was not allegorical and illusory ; (v) that
there were not two Christ*, one in heaven the
other on earth. Then after vindicating Origen's
method of interpreting scripture, it shews (vi)
that he does not falsify the sacred narrative
by allegorical exegesis. Lastly, it deals with
his doctrines concerning the nature and destiny
of the human soul, asserting (vii) Origen's belief
in the resurrection of the body, and (viii) in the
future punishment of the impenitent; (ix) it
maintains the soundness of his views as to the
condition of departed souls ; and (x) that he does
not teach that the souls of the wicked pass by
transmigration into beasts. On essential prin-
ciples, then, Origen's orthodoxy is asserted ; it is,
however, conceded that where the voice of the
church is silent, e.g., on the relations of body
and soul, his speculations are open to question.
But the distinction between speculation and
doctrine is insisted upon, and it is shewn that
these theories are broached only in scattered
Digitized by
Google
0EIGEN1STIC CONTROVERSIES
references, not advanced in a systematic treatise. '
On one point of primary importance the apology
is silent. While it attributes the outcry against
Origen to envy, ignorance, and stupidity, it
makes no reference to any formal condemnation
or forfeiture of orthodox reputation during his
lifetime. In this matter therefore it gives us
no clue to unravel the facts of the case. [The
remains of this Apology are contained in Migne,
vol. x., pp. 1557 foil., and in Caillau, Coll. Eccl.
Pat. vol. iv. pp. 497, foil.] By anticipation the
rejoinder to this defence (Jmriporicii), published
by Antipater of Bostra, about A.D. 460, may be
here mentioned. Fragments of this work survive
in the Acts of the Second Nicene Council (Labbe,
Cone. vol. vii. p. 367). In the passage there
preserved Eusebius is attacked, but no mention
is made of Pamphilns. Antipater admits the
historical learning of the former, but denies his
knowledge of doctrine on the score of his hereti-
cal tendencies. The doctrines of Origen to which
he refers in the fragment are the pre-existence
of souls, and the subordination of the Son. The
treatise seems to have been accepted as an
authoritative reply to Origenism, and to have
been read by official command in churches. [In
Migne, vol. lxxxv., pp. 1791 foil.]
IV.— Controversy is the Arian Period.
The Arian controversies of the 4th century
roused a new storm against Origen. In the
earlier part of the struggle indeed his name
does not occur. The Arian party, though forti-
fying themselves with the sanctity of the martyr
Lucian, made no reference to Origen, nor was he
cited by Alexander, their chief opponent before
Nicies (Tillemont, vol. iii. p. 598 ; Soc. II. E.
i vi. ; Huet, Origen., 2, 4. sec. 1, cc. 4-6 ; cf.
Newman, Arians, i. tec 3). But the appeal was
inevitable. Before long by champions of ortho-
doxy he was denounced as " the Father of Arian-
ian," while the Arians, catching the cue, shel-
tered themselves under his authority as counte-
nancing their doctrine of the Logos. Some even
attempted to set him in the place of Arius as
the rallying-point of the party (Soc. H. E. iv.
26). On the other hand, Aetius, an Arian, in
asserting the creation of the Son, attacks Origen
together with Clement, as holding the orthodox
position (Soc. H. E. ii. 35 ; Sozom. H. E. iv. 12).
Suspicion, however, against Origen was aggra-
vated by the character of his adherents. Diony-
iios of Alexandria lay under a similar charge of
heresy ; the sympathies of his apologist, Euse-
bius, were notorious ; and Timotheus, a leader
of the Arian party at Constantinople, in his
devotion to the writings of Origen, was but a
type of a numerous class (Soc. H. E. vii. 6).
But while Origen's orthodoxy was impugned,
his assailants exhibited the widest divergence of
opinion as to the measure of his guilt. Eusta-
thius of Antioch, a prominent opponent of the
Arians, wrote a treatise against Origen, but only
with reference to his interpretation of the story
of the witch of Endor (De Engtatrimytho adv.
Orig. Galland, Sibt. Pat. vol. iv. pp. 541 foil. ;
Migne, vol. rviii. pp. 614-674). So that if
Origen's views on the Trinity were really un-
sound, it is strange that they should have
escaped impeachment by so zealous a champion
of orthodoxy (cf. Hieron. De Vir. IB. c. lxxxv).
CHRIST, bioqr.— vou IV.
ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES 145
Marcellus of Ancyra, on the other hand, in his
reply to Asterius, to which Eusebius in turn
rejoined, sets down Origen as the fountain-head
of Arianism. The primary cause, however, of
his antipathy, seems to be the admixture of
pagan philosophy with Christian teaching to be
found in the introduction of the ireol &px&v and
elsewhere ; and Origen's most heinouB offence is
not heresy, but his perverse union of Platonism
and Christianity. On more vital errors he is
strangely silent (Eusebius c. Marcellum ; Migne,
xxiv. p. 754 foil., especially, p. 761). Hostility
did not confine itself within these limits. Ori-
gen's profound learning and ascetic morality
excited the enthusiastic admiration of the culti-
vated portion of the Egyptian monks (Epiph.
Haer. lxiv. or xliv. ; Migne, vol. xli.), and racho-
mius, the founder of Egyptian monasticism, and
leader of the anthropomorphist party, forbade
his monks to read Origen's writings. He is
said to have ordered the books to be cast out
of the monastery into the river (Boll. Acta
Sane. Maii 14, vol. iii. p. 304, and App. xxv.
p. 30), and the act would only be in keeping
with the intense antipathy to Origen and his
followers recorded by the biographer, who tells
us that Pachomius was once visited by strangers,
unsavoury even to an ascetic nose. The reason
of their noisomeness [cWaSfa] was soon ex-
plained by an angel, who informed Pachomius
that he had been entertaining Origenists un-
awares. The doctrines of that heretic in the
heart were supposed to pollute the whole man
from centre to skin ( Vita PachomU ; Boll. Acta
Sane. Maii 3, Appen. 25, p. 53 ; cf. Doucin, p. 122 ;
Tillemont, vii. pp. 206). Theodoras, his suc-
cessor, seems to have been imbued with the same
spirit. (Ep. de Vita Theodori, c. iii.)
Origen, on his side, did not lack friends among
the greatest and wisest men of the age. Atha-
nasius was foremost in vindicating his orthodoxy
against the Arians, maintaining the enormity of
impnting to Origen as fundamental beliefs that
which he wrote merely in the form of sugges-
tion for those who go deeply into the mysteries
of existence. So far from agreeing with the
Arians, Origen's sympathies, he asserts, are with
the orthodox. The Arians believe that the
Word was created out of nothing ; Origen, that
it was generated from the womb of uncreated
light. They admit the Word to have existed
before all ages, but not its eternity; Origen
holds that it had no beginning but was coetenial
(owatSos) with the Father. The Arians believed
that the Word, like the rest of creation, was
subject to change ; Origen, that it was essen-
tially immutable. The doctrine of subordina-
tion no doubt was a serious error, and Athanasius
also combatted Origen's views about the nature
of the soul and of sin ; but these failings could
not in his mind destroy the holiness of that
wonderful saint (Athanasius, De Decret. Syn.
A'fc. xxvii. ; Ad Scrap, ep. iv. § 9 foil. ; Migne,
P. vol. xxv. p. 466 ; vol. xxvi. p. 650 foil. cf.
Doucin, pp. 110, 111). Basil also in his treatise
on the Holy Spirit claims Origen as orthodox on
this crucial doctrine (De Spiritu Sancto, Migne,
vol. xxxii. p. 203, § 61 ; Benedict, edit. vol.
iii. p. 61), and though he admitted errors in
some portions of Origen's works, he edited with
Gregory of Nazianzum the a)iAoK<fAia, a volume
of extracts selected from Origen's treatises on
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
146 OBIOENISTIC CONTROVERSIES
important subjects (cf. Huet, Orig. II. iii. 6, 7 ;
in Migne, vol. xvii. p. 1097). Gregory of
Nyssa must also be included among his admirers
and champions (Steph. (Job. in Photius, cod. 232 ;
cf. cod. 233; Huet, Orig. II. iv. 1, §6; Migne,
1. c. p. 1121). To this company must be added
Didymus, the teacher of Hieronymus, who was
to prove one of Origen's most bitter assailants.
His sympathy, however, was imperfect ; and if
we may accept the testimony of Hieronymus,
not an impartial witness indeed, Didymus re-
jected the teaching of Origen as to the nature
of the Trinity, holding the doctrine himself in
the most rigidly orthodox form (Hieron. adv.
Bufin. 1. § 6; cf. iii. § 13; Migne, P., vol.
xxiii. pp. 401 and 467). Didymus also wrote
notes upon the vepl 4px™'i explaining apparent
anomalies in an orthodox sense (Hieron. Ep. ad
Pamm. lxxxir. § 4 [=Bened. 41]), a proceeding
which commended itself to many who, in spite of
general admiration, viewed with suspicion Ori-
gen's extreme allegorical tendencies and the
dubious passages in his great speculative treatises.
While the controversy was still in this stage,
Epiphanius, the venerable bishop of Cyprus,
made his first appearance as an opponent of the
Origenist party. His hostility was of no recent
growth, for, while a monk in the Egyptian desert,
he had allied himself to the party, of Pachomius.
At this time his power and reputation made him
the most formidable antagonist that the Ori-
genists had yet encountered since the attack of
Methodius. In three separate works Epiphanius
assailed the doctrines of Origen and his adhe-
rents, though his arguments had more vigour
than novelty, recapitulating as they do the
charges of his predecessor. (1) In bis " An-
cKoratus," ' \y xipwros (A.D. 374), Epiphanius
includes Origen in the list of heretics (§ 13),
and sets down as obnoxious tenets (a) his alle-
gorical account of creation and paradise (§§ 54-5) ;
(6) the doctrine that in the resurrection not the
natural body will be raised, but a body of finer
material here contained within it (§ 55); (c)
Origen's interpretation of the phrase " coats of
skins " as representing the human body (§ 62) ;
•(if) his subordination of the Son to the Father
(§ 63). (2) In his great work against all
heresies, Tavdpiov (A.D. 374-377), Epiphanius
recurs to the attack, and in fuller detail, quoting
Methodius at great length (Jtatr. lxiv. or xliii.).'
All the charges previously made by Methodius
are reiterated in this work, and some new ones
added (c. xii. Migne, vol. xli. pp. 1067, foil.) He
asserts (a) that Origen teaches that the Son does
not see the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, nor
angels the Spirit, nor men angels. (6) That
though Origen derives the Son from the sub-
stance (otV(a) of the Father, he believes Him to
have been created and made, bearing the name
of Son, not by right but by favour ; a direct
encouragement to Arius (Ik rtirov 6 "Apitos
p In Saer. lxili. (xliii.) Epiphanius meutioos under
the head of OrigcnUU an Impure sect in Kgvpt, though
he admits that be cannot tell whether they sprang from
Origen himself or from some other heretic of bis name.
The Impure morality characteristic of the sect shows
that with the genuine Origcnlsts it can have no possible
connection; though Doucin (p. 1*0) argues that men
adopting Origen** conception of toe body as the prison
of the soul would naturally Infer that Its vices were
unimportant (cf. August. Dt Haer. 43, 43).
ORIGKNiSTIC CONTROVERSIES
t4j rptxpatrtu rfAtidw, c 4). (c) That Origen
maintains the souls of men to have existed as
celestial spirits before the bodies in which they
were imprisoned to punish them for sin (Uao
Kf KAirrcu to o~£pa tta to StSttrthu rj)v ^fixt* ("
rf awpjrrt, c. xii.). (d) That Origen asserted
Adam to have lost the Divine image at the Fall,
and allegorised the xeruvts ttpudrtvot (t'6.).
(e) That he mutilates and debases the doctrine
of the resurrection ; for if the body does not
rise, what will ? The soul is not in the grave (to.).
(/) That by his allegorical method of interpret
tation the sacred narrative is corrupted (ib.).
(3) In his 'Avturs^aAaWt* (I. ii. 18; Migne,
vol. xlii. p. 867) Epiphanius once again sums
up bis case against Origen under four. heads:
Resurrection ; the nature of the Son ; and of the
Holy Spirit ; allegorical interpretation of Para-
dise, Heaven, and all things ; also stating that
Origen taught that the kingdom of Christ would
have an end. (4) This last accusation is re-
peated in an expanded form in a. letter to
Johannes, bishop of Jerusalem (Migne, vol. xliii.
p. 379, §§ 4, 5). Acoording to the writer, Ori-
gen believed that the devil would be restored to
his former glory and made equal with Christ.
So that if Satan shall be subdued, reasons
Epiphanius, Christ will be subdued in like
manner. But this is an inference without logic
or reason. The struggle during this period was,
as we have seen, almost entirely confined to
literary controversy, and its issues were deter-
mined by the balance of conflicting personal
authority, not by formal and authoritative
decisions.
In the next period the character of the con-
troversy changes. Argument is enforced by
action, and diplomatic intrigue becomes more
potent than theological learning. We can trace
three well-defined stages in the struggle. (1)
The strife in Palestine between John of Jeru-
salem and Rufinus on the one side, and Hierony-
mus and Epiphanius on the other, Theophilus
of Alexandria intervening. (2.) The personal
quarrel between Hieronymus and Rufinus, aris-
ing out of the tatter's translation of the npl
dpx&y- (3.) The conflict between Theophilus of
Alexandria and the Egyptian monks, leading to
the controversy in which Chrysostom and Epi-
phanius were involved, and to the council held
near Constantinople, in the year A.D. 403. The
details hare been given with such fulness in
other articles that in many instances a mere
reference may serve instead of repetition.
(1) Strife in Palestine.
Palestine, as we have already seen, had for
long been a stronghold of the Origenistic party,
and about the year 390 a.d. Origen's admirers
in that country were powerful as well as
numerous. John, the bishop of Jerusalem, had
imbibed his doctrines among the devoted monks
of the Kitrian desert, and the heads of the reli-
gious communities at Bethlehem and on the
Mount of Olives were imbued with the same
spirit. At the former place Hieronymus and
Paula respectively presided over the monastery
and the convent; at the latter, Rufinus and
Melania discharged the same functions; both
Digitized by
Google
ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES
societies being bound together in close and inti-
mate friendship. Up to this time Hieronymus,
without accepting all Origen's speculations, had
studied his works with the religious and literary
fervour of an enlightened disciple. He had
translated treatises, he habitually used the com-
mentaries. Attachment to the master drew
him to the followers, and when he fled from
Some, though he visited Epiphanius, Origen's
staunch opponent, he made his way to Isidorus
at Alexandria, and listened to the lectures of
Didymus. In a letter to Paula, written in
385 A.D. he strenuously maintains the cause of
Origen against his assailants, attributing their
xeal not to orthodoxy but envy, and Origen's con-
demnation to the supremacy of his learning and
eloquence which meaner spirits could not brook.
(" Pro sudore quid accepit pretii f damnatur a
Demetrio episcopo. In damnationem eius con-
sent it urbs Romana; ipsa contra hunc cogit
senatum, non propter dogmatum novitatem, non
propter haeresim, ut nunc adversus enm rabidi
canes simulant ; sed quia gloriam eloquentiae
eius et scientiae ferre non poterant, et illo
dicente omnes muti putabantur." (Ep. xxxiii. ;
[= Bened. 29.])
Dissension first arose with the arrival of the
Egyptian monk Aterbius at Jerusalem in a.d.
392, who attacked Hieronymus and Rufinus for
their devotion to Origen. Hieronymus, always
morbidly sensitive to any imputation of heresy,
repudiated the charge. He subsequently as-
serted that he had condemned the doctrines of
Origen (** cam damnatione dogmatum Origenis
sitisfecissem," c. Ruf. iii. 33); but this was
probably an exaggeration, for when Vigilantins
soon after reiterated the charge, Hieronymus
asserted the right to discriminate between the
true and the false elements in the great specula-
tive system (Ep. lxi. [= Bened. 36]). Inwardly
however he was wavering, and the arrival of his
friend Epiphanins in a.d. 394, who appears to
have undertaken to extirpate the Ongenistic
heresy in Palestine, turned the scale, and Hiero-
nymus at once appears as a partisan of ortho-
doxy. Full details of the personal wrangle
which ensued may be found elsewhere. [HiERO-
STMTJS (4) ; JOHANKES (216) ; EPIPHANIUS (1).]
It is clear that Epiphanius at the outset con-
tented himself with general denunciation of
Origenism, not singling out Rufinus and Johannes
for special censure. On the other hand, the
conduct of the Origenist party in the church
during the discourse of Epiphanius, and the
menacing demeanour of Johannes ; the warning
that he sent to Epiphanius by his archdeacon,
and his public attack upon anthropomorphic
views in which the personal reference to Epi-
phanius was unmistakable, made a rupture only
a question of time, and antagonism was intensi-
fied by a strenuous refusal twice repeated to
condemn Origen and his doctrines. The subse-
quent conduct of Epiphanius intensified the
irritation. Having failed to convince Johannes
by argument, he endeavoured to crush him by
isolation. With this end in view, he first induced
the monks at Bethlehem to exclude Johannes
with Rufinus and his other friends from com-
munion, and, secondly, consecrated at Eleuthero-
polis Paalinianus, a brother of Hieronymus.
Such conduct in an alien diocese was a serious
encroachment upon the jurisdiction of the
ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES 147
lawful bishop, and provoked indignant resent-
ment.' 1
The pleas put forward by the partisans of
Epiphanius in self-defence were futile, not to
say frivolous (cf. Hieronymus, Epist. c. Johann.
Mtgne,P.vol.xxii.^p.82; [= Bened. 39]), and the
apology only supplied material for new contro-
versy. Hieronymus, who throughout the quarrel
is a zealous partisan of the bishop of Cyprus,
translated his defence into Latin : the version
disappeared, and Hieronymus accused Rufinus
with having suborned an agent to steal it.
(Hieron. Ep. lvii. (= Bened. 33) ; c. Ruf. iii. 84.)
Johannes meanwhile is silent, his controversial
zest having abated ; but Epiphanius does not
relax his efforts, and now writes the long letter
to which allusion has already been made (Migne,
vol. xliii. pp. 379, foil.), specifying the substance
of his indictment of Origen. In answer to an
appeal from Johannes, Theophilus of Alexandria,
who was still an Origenist, makes an attempt
to reconcile the disputants without success ; for
Isidorus, to whom the mission was entrusted,
according to Hieronymus, acted with dishonour-
able partiality. (Hieron. c. Johann. §§ 87-39 ;
c. Ruf. iii. § 18.) Johannes again writes to
Theophilus, recounting the course of events, and
the bishop of Alexandria takes advantage of a
correspondence with Siricius of Rome to send on
the letter with another from himself, charging
Epiphanius with anthropomorphic heresy, not
perhaps without reference to similar heretics in
his own diocese. To this letter of Johannes,
Hieronymus at once published an elaborate
reply. (Ad Pammach. adv. Johann. Ep. lxxxiv.
[= Bened. 41] cf. Palladius, de Vita Chrysoi.
§ 16 j Tillemont, vol. xii. pp. 186, 187.) Before
this Rufinus had made his peace with his former
friend, a harmony not destined to be permanent.
The terms of reconciliation are uncertain. The
account given by Hieronymus would lead us to
suppose that any concession made was on the
part of Rufinus, but such evidence without dis-
interested corroboration has little valne. (" Iun-
ximus dextras, ut vos essetis Catholici, non ut
essemus haeretici," e. Safin, iii. § 24 ; cf. § 33.)
Probably, the friends agreed to differ on the
question in dispute. This reconciliation Arche-
laus, the governor of Palestine, endeavoured to
extend to the other remaining foes, but his efforts
were idle, the monks insisting upon the con-
demnation of Origen as an indispensable pre-
liminary to any agreement ("ut futurae con-
cordiae fides iaceret fundamenta," Hieron. c.
Johann. § 40). Theophilus in a subsequent
attempt had better fortune. After he had turned
against the Origenists, A.D. 397-399, he wrote
to Epiphanius, entreating for the cessation of
strife. The advance was accepted (Migne, P. Ep.
lxxxii. in Hieronymus ; [= Bened. 39], and
Theophilus went to Jerusalem aud restored
communion between the city and Bethlehem,
allying himself with Hieronymus throughout
the remainder of the controversy. (Hieron. Epp.
lxxxvi.-xcvi. ; = Bened. 59-63; 111; others
unedited.)
4 Tbe two acts are really connected ; one Is a
consequence of tbe other. TUlemont inverts the order,
vol. xli., pp. 168, 170. Hieronymus did not officiate
himself, and a priest was needed to keep up the services
after the separation from Jerusalem. Cf. Vallarsl,
Hieron 1. p. 95 ; In Migne, P. vol. xxH. p. 95.
L 2
Digitized by
Google
148 OKIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES
(2) RtTFINUS AND HlERONTHPS.
Before peace had been mndc between the
hostile parties in Palestine, Rufinus had left the
scene of strife and had returned to Rome, where
he soon became embroiled in a new quarrel,
trivial in itself, indeed, but important as lead-
ing to a condemnation of Origen by a bishop of
Rome. Without repeating all the history of
the controversy given in other biographies
[Hiebonyhus (4) ; Rufinus], we may record
the main incidents. At the request of his
friend Macarius, Rufinus translated first the
famous apology of Pamphilus, — of which only
the first book still survives,— and then the *<p\
ipx&y of Origen himself. In a preface to the
former work he exhorted those who might look
upon his conduct with suspicion to disregard all
imputations of heresy, and to make the. know-
ledge of truth their supreme concern. At the
same time he explicitly affirmed his own belief
in the Holy Trinity, and in the resurrection of
the body. In an appendix he discussed the
adulteration of Origen's works, contending that
heretics, to support their own errors, had falsi-
fied the text with interpolations. The intro-
duction to the second treatise struck a bolder
note. Rufinus reminds his readers that in under-
taking such a translation he is but following
the example of Hieronymus himself, who had
translated more than seventy treatises of Origen,
describing him as the greatest teacher of the
church after the apostles. Furthermore, he had
adopted the method of Hieronymus in explain-
ing obscurities, amplifying too concise passages,
illustrating di£culties by quotations from other
works, and suppressing heterodox passages as
dangerous or spurious. His task completed,
Rufinus left Rome for Aquileia, provided with
letters from Siricius, who died in the same year,
A.p. 898. The two treatises he left behind to
do their work at Rome. The friends of Hiero-
nymus at once took up the challenge — for such
it really was — and Pammacbius wrote to him
from Rome, forwarding a copy of the translation
and suggesting that Hieronymus should prepare
a genuine version (Hieron. Ep. lxxxiii. Migne,
= Bened. 40). Hieronymus replied, clearing
himself of the charges, and stating, somewhat
disingenuously, that be had never been an
admirer of Origen, but had controverted his
errors. He also denied the incriminated pas-
sages in the works of Origen to be spurious
interpolations, and impugned the genuineness of
the apology attributed to Pamphilus. (Ep. lxxxiv.
( = Bened. 41)). Finally, he recapitulates the
heretical doctrines of Origen as set down by
Kpiphanius, and adds that at Nicaea Origen had
been by implication condemned as the forefather
of Arianism. After an interval, Rufinus replied
in his Apologia addressed to his friend Apol-
lonianus.'
The treatise is, in the main, a vindication of
his personal faith and a retaliation upon
Hieronymus. In the first book, he reasserts his
own orthodoxy as to the fundamental doctrines
of the Christian faith. He believes in the
Trinity, but defends the statement which had
' Not " Invecttvarum In Hleronymum libri duo," as
the treatise bas been wrongly entitled.
ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES
been misinterpreted, that the Son does not see
the Father (" non videt "). The Son knowetb
the Father, he admits ; but the Father is not
visible to the eye of sense. He also professes
his own faith in the Incarnation, the Atone-
ment, the Resurrection of the body, adding with
reference to this last doctrine that nt Aquileia,
his home, the definite phrase " hutus carnis "
was always used in place of the more common
and vague expression. He then proceeds to ex-
plain how he had been induced to publish the
translation of Origen's treatise, insisting that
he had carefully guarded himself against all
responsibility for error, and defending the
integrity of his method of dealing with the text
of the original. In the second book, stung by
the charge that he had perjured himself in his
profession of faith, he retorts upon Hieronymus
that he had violated an oath by reading pagan
writers, and Porphyry in particular, after n
solemn renunciation of all snch perilous erudi-
tion. Advancing still further along the same
lines, he shews the inconsistency of Hieronymus,
who had extolled Origen for virtue and learning,
reviling his foes with equal vehemence, and was
himself as a commentator largely indebted to
Origen, especially in his treatise on Micah. He
then vindicates the Apology of Pamphilus, the
character of which had been impugned by
Hieronymus in the heat of controversy, and
asserts the genuineness of the work. But even
accepting the theory of Hieronymus, he still
maintains that the essential force of the defence
is not impaired; for it proceeds by appeal to.
fact : every charge is refuted by Origen's own
words. In conclusion, Rufinus leaves his oppo-
nent in this dilemma ; that if Origen be con-
demned, he cannot escape, but as a translator
and imitator must stand or fall with his former
master.
This was but the beginning of strife.
Through the influence of Marcella and other
powerful friends of Hieronymus, Anastasins of
Rome was drawn into the dispute. He was
indeed entirely ignorant about Origen and hi»
works, but recognised heresy in passages selected
for his inspection. (Anastasius, Ep. ad Johann.
in Ep. tt Dec., Migne, P., vol. xx., pp. 68, foil.)
He summoned Rufinus to Rome in 399 a.d.
Rufinus did not obey the citation, but excused
himself by letter, adding a new profession of
orthodoxy and disclaiming any responsibility
for the views of Origen. Dissatisfied with this
reply, Anastasius proceeded to condemn Origen,
and though not explicitly condemning Rufinus
as well, he expresses his disapproval in the
strongest terms. (" Nee dissimilis reo est qni
alienis vitiis praestat assensum, illud tamen te
cupio ita haberi a nostris partibus alienum, nt
quod agat (sc. Rufinus) et ubi sit, nescire
cupiamns, ipse denique viderit ubi possit
absolvi." Anasta. ad Johann. vid. snp.) It has
been alleged that other bishops joined in this
condemnation, but the statement has little
evidence to support it. Anastasius indeed in
a letter to Simplicianus of Milan expresses a
desire to unite with Theophilus in condemning
the heretical doctrines of Origen, and asserts
that " we established in the city of Rome " (not
in urbe Roma positi) do condemn anything con-
trary to faith found in the worki of Origen ;
explaining that a priest, Eusebius oy name, had
Digitized by
Google
ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES
pointed out 'the blasphemous chapters, which,
with any other (similar?) things set forth by
Origen, had been condemned. Now " we " may
or may not refer to other bishops ; it is far more
probable that the plural is used in an official
sense. (Hieron. Ep. xcxv. Migne, P., vol. xxii.,
p. 772, cf. toI. xx. p. 74.) At any rate it is
certain that the condemnation did not take
place at a formal synod, for only one such
-council was held at Rome during the pontificate
of Anastasius — the synod convened against the
Donatists in a.d. 400~ (Mansi, vol. iii. pp. 1023,
1024, cf. Binius on a Carthaginian synod, ib.
pp. 1023, 1024). After Anastasius had con-
demned Origen, the Emperor Honorius forbade
his works to be read. (Hieron. ad Pammach. et
Marc. Ep. xcvii. ; Ad Theoph. Ep. lxxxviii. cf.
Baronius, ad ann. 400, nn. 33-35 ; ad ann. 402,
o. 29. Schroeckh, x. p. 194.) It is probable
that several letters passed between Rome and
the eastern churches with a view of securing a
more general concurrence in the decision of
Anastasius; how for the attempt succeeded
cannot be determined. (Hieron. c. JRufin. iii.
i 20, foil. Coustant, Epp. Pont. Roman, pp. 714,
719, 724. Migne, P., vol. xx. p. 58, foil,
(iv.) to Veneriug of Milan, condemning Origen's
works, I.e. p. 59 ; (ix.) c. Ruf. in Orient, ib.
p. 62; and Ep. lxxxviii. ref.) Hieronymus
exhorts Rulinus to acquiesce in this verdict,
"et duos (sc Theophilum et Anastasium)
«rientis atque occidentis TpoxauHpipovs alncri
seqoamur incessu." (c Rufin. iii. § 9.) The
succeeding stages of the personal conflict are
not essential to our immediate subject, and may
therefore be ignored. The condemnation of
Origen by Anastasius was the important result
of the quarrel ; it must certainly be accepted
as a fact, and Rulinus in his reply to Hieronymus
was not justified in discrediting it. (Cf. c. Ruf.
iii. § 20.) The thorough ignorance of Anasta-
sius is palpable, and his intervention was due
to the influence of the partisans of Hieronymus
and Epiphauius. The latter was the lending
spirit in the movement. It is from him that
Hieronymus adopts all his charges against
Origen, for only one has even the semblance of
originality, when in discussing the pre-existence
of the soul, Hieronymus asks whether the
human soul of Christ pre-existed before the
Incarnation of the Divine Logos. If it did,
then Christ must have had two souls, he argues,
and so proceeds to attack Origen's interpretation
of Philipp. ii. 5 (cf. Langen, Romische Kircke,
pp. 649-663). All these charges are repeated
in a letter to Avitus, dealing with the heresies
«f the ™pl Apx""- [Ep- exxiv. (= Benev. 94.)]
<3) Theopoilus asd the Egyptian Monks.
While this controversy was in progress, the
ttate of affairs at Alexandria had been trans-
formed. Theophilus, who had made himself
conspicuous by his antagonism to Epiphanius
and his partisans in Egypt, bad now changed
sides, abandoning Isidorus with the "Tall
Brethren " and his other allies among the monks
of the Origenist faction. [lsiDOBVS (28).
DioaooRDs (4). Ajntomus (1). Eothyicius
<3> Ecsemos (117).] A passage in his
Easter letter of A.D. 399 had roused a storm of
passion among the adherents of the anthropo-
ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES 149
morphist party. They had gathered in great
force, and threatened the bishop with instant
vengeance. In his alarm he evaded their anger
by equivocation. " In seeing you," he said, " I
see the face of God " [ovras i/taj tttov &t 6«o0
TpdVvaw] ; implying bis belief in the corporeal
nature of the Deity ; at their demand he also
disclaimed all sympathy with Origen and his
doctrines. (Gennndius, De Script. Eccl. xxxiii.
Migue, P., vol. 58. Soc. II. E. vi. 7. Sozom.
H. E. viii. 11.) About the same time, Isidorus,
whom Theophilus had put forward as a rival
claimant against Chrysostom for the throne of
Constantinople, quarrelled with his patron,
unable any longer to brook his avarice and
tyranny. (Isidorus of Pelusium, i. 152, 310,
ed. Conimel. 1605.) Theophilus sought unsuc-
cessfully to retaliate by a false accusation. The
monks of the Origenist party took sides against
the bishop, and he in his rage made their
religious views a weapon against them. (Theo-
philus, in Hieron. Ep. xcii. § 3. Sozom. H. E.
viii. 12.) Theophilus first convened a synod at
Alexandria, probably in A.D. 400, at which
Origen and his books were formally condemned,
not without resistance, if it is to this incident
that Sulpicius Severus refers in his account of
the shameful strife at Alexandria over the books
and opinions of Origen. (Dial. i. 6, Galland,
Bibl. viii. p. 404.) Theophilus next wrote to
Anastasius (Hieron. c. Rufin. ii. § 22) and also
addressed to the bishops of Cyprus and Pales-
tine a letter preserved in the translation of
Hieronymus, exhorting them to join in the
crusade. Justinian in his letter to Mennos
quotes a fragment of another epistle written
by Theophilus, either from this synod or from
another held about the same time at Alexandria
or in the Nitrn. It attacks Origen for heresy
with regard to the pre-existence and fall of
souls, and mentions Heraclas, wrongly as we
have seen, as the bishop who expelled him from
Alexandria. (Mansi, Cone. vol. iii. p. 973, foil.)
As a result of this appal a synod was held
at Jerusalem, and from it a reply was sent to
Theophilus acquiescing in the condemnation of
the heresies which he had mentioned, but stating
that several of those doctrines were not known
in Palestine (Mansi, vol. iii. p. 989 ; Supp. vol.
i. p. 271). Another synod was held in Cyprus,
and Epiphanius, at the request of Theophilus
his old antagonist, united with him in putting
Origen's works under a ban (Mansi, vol. iii.
p. 1020, 1022 ; Hieron. Epp. xc. xci. xcii. ; Soc.
II. E. vi. 10 ; Sozom. II. E. viii. 14). Chryso-
stom was proof against all pressure.'
The most important counts of the indictment
brought against the Origenists by Theophilus
are contained in the circular letter to the
bishops of Palestine and Cyprus mentioned above,
and in his Easter letters of a.d. 401, 402, and
404 ; all of which are preserved in the transla-
tions of Hieronymus (Epp. xcii. xcvi. xcviii. c).
Gennadi us also mentions a large treatise (" ununi
et grande volumen ") composed by Theophilus
against the Origenists (De Script. Eccl. xxxiii. in
• Mansi, II. c., sets these synods In 3»9, aj>„ agreeing
with Walcb (Kirchtnvtrtam. p. 346), and Baronius
ad. ann.; Pagl, In 401, a.d.; ad ann. n. 2, foil. cf.
Hefele, Council!, vol. 11. } 112, Migne, Diet. Cone., vol. I,
pp. 83-85.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
150 OBIGENKTIC OONTEOVEBSIES
OBIGENISTIC OONTEOVEBSIES
Migne, vol. lviii. pp. 1077, 1078) ; and Cyril of
Alexandria a discoane ; bat both are lost.
In the synodal letter Theophilus first enume-
rates the heretical doctrines of the xtpl ipx&r,
viz. (a) It is true that the Son is similar to us,
but false that He is similar to the Father, (b)
He is as inferior to the Father as Peter and Paul
are inferior to Him. (c) The kingdom of Christ
mil have an end. (d) The deril will at some
future time be purified from evil, and will with
Christ be made subject to some other power.
The next heretical doctrine (e) that we must not
pray to the Son either alone or with the Father, is
taken from the Book of Prayer (rtpl fuxys).
The sources of the rest are not stated : they are
as follows : (f) The body of the Resurrection
will be not only material but mortal, and in
the course of ages it will vanish into thin air.
(g) The angels were not originally created in
different orders for different service, but were
higher spirits fallen in different degrees from
their several estates (" diversis lapsibus et
minis "). (h) The Israelites sacrificed to angels
as the heathen to demons, (i) That Origcn
attributes to the heavenly bodies a fore-know-
ledge of events which the devil will bring
about, thus approving of heathen astrology,
(j) That Origen permitted and practised the use
of magic, (k) That he denied that the Son of
God became man, interpreting Philippians ii. 7,
not of the Divine Word but of the human soul
of Christ which came down from above. (1)
That Christ will at some future time suffer for
the redemption of the devil as he has already
suffered for the redemption of man (Hieron. Ep.
zcii. § 24). In the first Easter Letter (Hieron.
Ep. xcvi.) of a.d. 401 , Theophilus repeats seve-
ral of the charges enumerated above. Thus (c)
is repeated in §§ 5-7 ; (d) in § 8 ; (e) in § 14 ;
(0 in §§ 9, 13, 15 ; 0) >n § 16 ; and (1) in §§ 10,
11. Theophilus also combats the theory that
the terrestrial system is merely the product of
sin among the higher orders, that matter is in
itself evil and vain, and that the soul was sent
down to earth in punishment for sin in a pre-
vious existence (§§ 17-19). Theophilus adds as
a result of this degradation of matter that the
Origenists dishonour the honourable estate of
matrimony (§ 18); but it is possible that for
his own purpose he here identifies them with the
impure sect mentioned by Epiphanius. The
second Easter Letter A.D. 402 (Hieron. Ep.
xcviii.) is still more vehement. With general
abuse of Origen, whom it styles " the hydra of
all heresies " (" hydram omnium haercseon ") it
combines several new statements of old charges.
The points assailed are as follows : (i.) Origen's
misuse of allegory. By allegorical shadows and
empty images he robs Scripture of its truth
(§ 10). (ii.) That through the fall of spirits
from heaven God was compelled to create bodies
to contain them, and that the terrestrial system
is thus the outcome of sin (§ 10). (iii.) That
man dies many times, soul and body undergoing
incessant transformation by union or separation
(i.e. a doctrine of /ier<pil'vxv< r 'f >n a modified
form) (§ 11). (iv.) That angels were made
principalities and powers according to merit
ofter the fall of the devil (§ 12). (v.) That
the operation of the Spirit does not extend to
inanimate and irrational beings. This Theo-
philus controverts by the ordinances of Baptism
and the Eucharist, for the efficacy of which con-
sciousness is not essential (§ 13). (vi.) The
distinction between the human and the divine
soul of Christ. By this false doctrine, says
Theophilus, Origen destroys the universal faith
(§ 14). (vii.) That ravt, i.e. the higher intel-
ligence, was corrupted to il/oxf Of^X*** *- T - *•)
because it had lost the fervour of divine love
(§ 15). (viii.) That as the Father and the Son
are one, so the Son and the soul which H»
assumed are one (§ 16). (ix.) That God created
only so many rational creatures as He could
govern, conceive, keep in subjection, and rule
by providence (§ 18). The third Easter Letter
(a.d. 404, Hieron. Ep. c.) only repeats charges
already mentioned.
Theophilus. meanwhile had enforced his argu-
ments by more active measures. In a.d. 400,
he proceeded through the Nitrian desert, de-
nouncing the Origenist party and arming their
foes to attack them. More than three hundred
monks were driven into exile, among them the
'■ Tall Brethren," who finally took refuge with
about fifty companions at Constantinople (Soc.
H. E. vi. cc. 7, 9 ; Soxom. H. E. viii. cc. 12, 13).
Chrysostom, the bishop, though not admitting
the fugitives into full communion, entertained
them hospitably, and interceded with Theophilus
in their behalf. The latter, acting either on
false information or in eagerness to revenge his
former disappointment, at once sent emissaries
to Constantinople to accuse Chrysostom of
having illegally admitted excommunicated
monks to communion (A.D. 401). In the mean-
time the complaints of the monks had reached
the emperor, Arcadins, and he summoned Theo-
philus to appear in his own defence. Unwilling
to obey the summons in person, the bishop de-
ferred his coming, but arranged that Epiphanius
should go on in advance and use his great in-
fluence to discredit the accusers, who were im-
prisoned till the character of their charges
could be established (a.d. 402). The history of
the struggle which ensued has been told else-
where, and only such incidents as bear directly
upon the condemnation of Origenism will be
repeated here. [Chrysostom (d) and (e).
DlOSCOBUS (4). EPIPHAHIU8 (1).]
Epiphanius, after provocation by irregularities
not unlike those committed by him in Palestine,
demanded that Chrysostom should expel Dios-
corus and sign a condemnation of Origen's
works. But for an emphatic warning he would,
in the Church of the Apostles, have publicly
anathematised Dioscorus, his companions, the
books of Origen, and the bishop. Chrysostom,
on his side, insisted that both parties should
wait for the synod to jndge between them (Soc.
H. E. vi. 14 ; Sozom. //. E. viii. 14. Cassio-
dorus, Hist. Trip. x. 12 in Migne, Pat. Lat. lxix.).
Epiphanius had already attempted to secure the
adhesion of the bishops in the city, producing
the decrees of the synod in Cyprus, and demand-
ing their signatures in token of assent. Some
yielded out of respect for Epiphanius ; others,
and prominently Theotimus of Scythia, gave an
emphatic refusal (Soc H. E. vi. 12 ; Sozom. H. E.
viii. 14 ; Cassiodorus, 7/isf. Trip. x. 11). Foreseeing
failure, and having other reasons for suspicion,
Epiphanius, after a final altercation with Chry-
sostom, set out for Cyprus and died at sea, a.d.
403 (Cassiodorus, ib. c 12). Sozomen gives a
Digitized by
Google
OBIGENISTIC CONTBOVEBSIES
different account of the departure and death of
the great leader. His story i» that through the
interrention of the empress, Eudoxia, the monks
and Epiphanius had an interview, and while
they pleaded that they had read his 'Ayxiparos,
he admitted that he had not read the literature
on their side. He was moved by their entrea-
ties, and was reconciled to them before his de-
parture; the recrimination between the two
bishops is referred to an earlier occasion. This
account is not corroborated by other evidence,
and it seems improbable that Epiphanius, who
was a sincere bigot, should have at the last
come to suspect the character of the man who
had for so long adroitly used him as a tool to
gratify his personal resentment. (Sozom. H. E.
viii. 15.)
Before long Theophiltu himself arrived at
Constantinople, attended by a crowd of satellites.
He succeeded at once in reversing his position
(" ex reo subito factus est auctor et index."
Binius in Mansi, vol. mil. p. 1147). Nothing
more is heard of the charge against him, and it
is Chrysostom who is cited to appear before a
council convened not at Constantinople but at
Chalcedon, on the estate (" suburbium ") of the
imperial prefect, Rufinus (Synodus ad Quercum,
M tpvv). Paul of Heraclea presided, and of
the thirty-six bishops present the majority were
creatures of Theophilus. Even the eastern
contingent included some avowed foes of
Chrysostom.' It was with persons not principles
that the council dealt. In the original indict-
ment of Chrysostom the charge of Origenism
does not appear in a single one of the twenty-
tine clauses. Socrates and Sozomen agree in
asserting that the question was not discussed at
all by the assembly (Soc. H. E. vi. 15 ; Sozom.
H. E. viii. 17). At a later stage of the pro-
ceedings, however, there was an indirect refer-
ence to the bishop's Origenistic tendencies. John,
a monk, accused the bishop Heraclides of being
an Origenist and a thief; and bishop Isaac in a
list of seventeen offences includes three which
bear distinctly upon the point in question,
though in reality the doctrinal issue is entirely
obscured by personal considerations. It was
alleged that (i.) Chrysostom, to please the Ori-
genista, had beaten and imprisoned the monk
John ; (ii.) that Epiphanius on that account had
refused to hold communion with him; (iii.) that
Chrysostom had received the Origenistic monks,
whom Theophilus had excommunicated, though
he would not release prisoners actually in com-
munion with the church and possessing letters
«f commendation. The first of these allegations,
setting aside the reference to Chrysostom's
heretical tendencies, had already been discussed
in dealing with the second clause of the original
indictment. The council now proceeded to con-
sider the other points, and finally condemned
both Chrysostom and Heraclides. The verdict,
however, had no reference to doctrine, but only
to